A structured interview is a conversation conducted against a pre-defined rubric, with each question tied to a competency and each answer rated on a fixed scale. The structure is the assessment. The interviewer is the instrument.
How it differs from a hiring interview
The hiring interview, covered in Conducting an interview, uses the same underlying mechanics but is initiated by the hiring pipeline. A structured interview as an assessment is initiated from the Develop side and assigned to an existing employee — typically by HR, often as part of a development review.
The runner is the same. The data lands in the same place. The difference is contextual: a hiring interview asks should we bring this person in? — a structured interview asks where is this person now, and what do they need?
What it measures
Whatever the rubric measures. A typical structured interview for development might cover:
- Judgement on a recent hard decision.
- Communication and stakeholder framing.
- Coaching or mentoring patterns.
- Strategic thinking about the team or function.
These are the competencies that the technical assessment cannot reach (because they are not technical) and the behavioural assessment cannot reach (because they require evidence, not preference).
How it gets assigned
Two paths:
- From the Develop dashboard. Assign the assessment to the employee, picking the rubric (you author rubrics in Hiring configuration or on a per-role basis as in Interview rubric). The platform creates an assessment record and puts the slot-scheduling responsibility on you.
- From the employee's profile. Click Assess → Structured interview → pick a rubric and an interviewer. Same outcome.
In both cases, scheduling is the same as a hiring interview — propose slots, the assessee picks one, calendar invites issue.
During the interview
Same conduct page as a hiring interview. The interviewer asks the questions in order, takes notes, rates each answer on the 0–4 scale. The page is read-write across pauses; the interviewer can save and come back.
How the result reaches the competency profile
Structured-interview ratings contribute to the competencies tied to each question, with the per-competency aggregate weighted by fidelity 0.7. This is higher than CV self-report (0.4) and behavioural (0.5), lower than simulation (0.9). The reasoning: a single human's structured rating is good signal but it is one human; a simulation is more standardised.
If multiple interviewers conduct structured interviews on the same employee using the same rubric within a 90-day window, their ratings are aggregated. The aggregate is more reliable than any individual rating.
How to read the result
The report shows:
- The interviewer's per-question ratings and notes.
- A roll-up per competency (which is what flows to the profile).
- A short narrative summarising the strengths and gaps.
If multiple interviewers contributed, their ratings are shown side-by-side so divergence is visible. As with hiring interviews, the platform does not arbitrate disagreements — it surfaces them.
When to use it
- Mid-year or annual development conversations, where the structure prevents a free-form chat from drifting.
- Promotion assessments, where you want a record of evaluation rather than only an outcome.
- Cross-team peer review, where a colleague from another function is asked to rate (peer review more broadly is on the v0.6 list, but structured interview can stand in for now).
When not to use it
- For high-volume cohorts. The interviewer's time is the binding constraint; for cohort-scale assessment, simulations or cognitive tests scale better.
- For competencies that the rubric cannot evaluate well. Rating a candidate's Python proficiency through conversation is poor signal compared to the technical assessment.
Next
Simulation — the fifth and highest-fidelity type — is covered next.