The Technical & Culture Fit Dual Assessment

Create a balanced two-part interview script that rigorously evaluates technical capability and team culture alignment for specialized roles (e.g., Software Engineer, UX Designer). Features a technical challenge debrief section, culture-add questions, and separate rubrics to prevent "brilliant jerk" hires.

Example output:

Interview Script: UX Research Lead

Interviewer Brief: Welcome, [Candidate Name]. I'm [Your Name], Head of Hiring. Today's 60-minute conversation is structured in two parts: a research methodology deep dive and a collaboration assessment. Our goal is to understand your approach to uncovering deep user insights and how you translate them into influence and action. This is a collaborative discussion—I'm here to understand your process and perspective.

Section A: Technical Deep Dive (30 minutes)

Objective: Assess mastery of rigorous, mixed-methods research design, synthesis, and the strategic influence to turn insights into product impact.

Opening Context: "In this role, you'd be responsible for guiding product strategy by uncovering both what users do and why they do it. Let's start with a few conceptual questions."

1. Open-Ended Conceptual Questions (10 mins)

1. Mixed-Methods Philosophy: "Walk me through how you would design a research plan to understand why a key feature in our product has low adoption. How would you integrate both behavioral data and attitudinal research to get a complete picture, and what would you be careful to avoid when merging these data types?"
   • Probes: Triangulation, sequencing (quant → qual for explanation, qual → quant for validation), avoiding bias (e.g., using behavioral data to frame unbiased qual questions), identifying gaps between stated and revealed preference.
2. From Insights to Roadmaps: "You've just completed a foundational study revealing a significant, unmet user need that would require a substantial shift in the product roadmap to address. How do you socialize this finding to build conviction among product and engineering leadership, and what artifacts do you create to ensure the insight doesn't get deprioritized as 'interesting but not actionable'?"
   • Probes: Stakeholder mapping, crafting compelling narratives (vs. just reports), creating durable artifacts (e.g., journey maps, personas, opportunity scorecards), tying insights to business metrics.

2. Pre-Shared Task Debrief Framework (15 mins)

Task Provided 48hrs in Advance: "Analyze this provided dataset of user feedback and analytics snippets for a 'team collaboration' feature. Propose a focused, 3-week mixed-methods research plan to identify the top opportunity for improving user satisfaction. Outline your key partners, methods, and how you'd present findings to a cross-functional team."

Debrief Prompts:

1. Methodological Rationale: "Talk me through why you chose this specific sequence of methods. What hypotheses were you testing with the quantitative side, and what deeper understanding were you seeking with the qualitative follow-up?"
2. Scoping & Trade-offs: "Given a 3-week constraint, what did you deliberately decide not to study in depth? How did you ensure your plan was rigorous enough to drive decisions without being academically exhaustive?"
3. Influence & Synthesis: "Your final presentation is to a skeptical Engineering Director who values speed. How would you structure your 10-minute summary to compel action? What would the headline of your slide be?"

3. Technical Rubric (5-point scale: 1=Poor, 3=Proficient, 5=Exceptional)

Criteria13 (Target)5Methodological Accuracy & RigorConfuses methods, proposes biased questions, or cannot justify mixed-methods approach. Plan is a list of activities, not a logical inquiry.Selects appropriate, unbiased methods that logically triangulate. Clearly defines learning goals and how data types will complement each other.Demonstrates sophisticated methodological design. Anticipates and mitigates bias and validity threats. Expertly adapts methods to business constraints without sacrificing rigor.Efficiency & Action-OrientationPlan is academic, unrealistic in timeframe, or produces findings too vague to act on. No clear link to decision-making.Scopes research to answer a specific, actionable business question within constraints. Plan includes clear stakeholders and a dissemination strategy from the start.Designs "just enough" research to de-risk decisions. Proactively identifies and involves key decision-makers throughout the process. Plan is a blueprint for influence.Modern Best Practices & SynthesisStops at reporting themes or quotes. No synthesis into higher-order frameworks. Ignores existing behavioral data.Synthesizes data into compelling frameworks (jobs, journeys, mental models). Integrates qual and quant to tell a complete, human-centered story.Creates durable, generative artifacts that shape team thinking beyond a single project. Champions inclusive recruitment and accessibility standards. Advances team's research acumen.Communication of RationaleCannot explain why a method was chosen or defend the plan's limitations.Articulates clear logic connecting business question → method → expected insight. Openly discusses trade-offs made.Communicates with the precision of a scientist and the clarity of a strategist. Builds confidence in the research process itself.

Section B: Values & Collaboration Assessment (30 minutes)

Transition Context: "Thank you. Now I'd like to shift focus to how we work. Our culture is built on 'Radical Candor with Empathy'—we believe the kindest thing you can do is be direct, clear, and challenge others when you see a problem, but always from a place of shared purpose and care for the individual."

1. Situational Questions (20 mins)

1. Challenging a Product Decision: "A product manager you respect is strongly advocating to ship a feature based on a single, compelling customer request. Your research, however, suggests this solution would not scale to broader user needs and could even cause confusion. How do you approach this conversation?"
   • Probes: Preparing clear evidence, framing feedback around shared goals ("I know we both want to solve the right problem"), offering to do a quick, focused follow-up study, maintaining a collaborative tone.
2. Giving Feedback to a Partner: "A designer on your project has become defensive when research findings contradict their design direction. They've started to question the methodology rather than engage with the insights. How would you address this to move the project forward constructively?"
   • Probes: Seeking first to understand their concerns, validating their expertise, re-framing findings as about the problem not the solution, inviting them into the analysis process, separating person from work.
3. Receiving and Modeling Candor: "After you present research, an engineer on the team says, 'I just don't find this convincing. Five users isn't enough to tell us anything.' How do you respond in the moment to model our value?"
   • Probes: Acknowledging the concern without defensiveness, explaining the rationale for sample size and method choice, asking what would be convincing to them, offering to explore the data together, turning it into a teaching moment about research principles.

2. Behavioral Rubric (5-point scale: 1=Poor, 3=Proficient, 5=Exceptional)

Value: Radical Candor with EmpathyNegative Indicators (1)Proficient Behaviors (3)Exceptional Behaviors (5)Challenges Directly & ClearlyIs passive-aggressive, avoids conflict, or bottles up dissent. Criticism is personal or vague.Provides clear, timely, and specific feedback focused on the work or idea, not the person. "That prototype didn't test well because X..."Challenges up, down, and sideways with equal respect. Known for having the "hard conversations" that lead to better outcomes. Builds a culture where challenge is expected.Roots Critique in Shared CareFeedback feels like an attack or is delivered from a place of superiority or frustration.Demonstrates "I'm giving you this feedback because I care about our shared goal" through framing and delivery. Shows they've considered the other's perspective.Critiques in a way that makes the recipient feel supported, not diminished. Masterfully separates the person from the problem, preserving the relationship.Seeks & Accepts Feedback OpenlyDefensive, dismissive of others' perspectives, or takes critique personally.Actively solicits feedback on their own work and process. Listens without interruption, thanks people for candor, and demonstrates change.Models vulnerability by openly discussing their own mistakes and learnings. Uses feedback to publicly improve team processes, making psychological safety tangible.

Synthesis & Hiring Recommendation Guidance

Scoring & Decision Framework:

1. Independent Scoring: Score each rubric section (Technical and Behavioral) independently out of 5. Calculate an average for each section.
2. The Red Flag Rule: A score of 1 or 2 in any single rubric criterion is a critical red flag. For this Lead role, a low score in "Challenges Directly" (will not influence) or "Methodological Accuracy" (will not be credible) is particularly disqualifying.
3. The Balanced Hire Matrix:
   • Strong Hire (Target): Average score of 3.5 or above in both sections. This is the "Trusted Advisor"—they produce impeccable research and have the interpersonal courage and skill to ensure it shapes decisions. They build team capability.
   • Borderline / Debrief Required: A significant imbalance. The "Brilliant Hermit" (5 Technical / 2 Behavioral) produces genius insights that sit on a shelf because they can't navigate conflict. The "Smooth Facilitator" (2 Technical / 5 Behavioral) is beloved but lacks the methodological depth to ensure the team is building the right thing. The panel must ask: "At the Lead level, which gap poses a greater risk to our product outcomes?"
   • Not a Fit: Scores below 3 in either section. A researcher who cannot conduct rigorous, actionable research or who cannot engage in candid, empathetic dialogue cannot perform the core functions of this leadership role.

Final Recommendation Note:
"A UX Research Lead's ultimate product is not a report, but a better decision. They need the technical skill to uncover the truth and the cultural skill to tell it—especially when it's uncomfortable. Hire the researcher who sees their role not as a service provider, but as the steward of the user's voice and a catalyst for collective learning."