How to make a list of five questions to ask before hiring anyone
Choosing a new team member means making a judgement about how someone will perform, collaborate and respond when plans change. A prepared set of questions turns that broad assessment into a fairer process. It gives every candidate the same opportunity to explain their experience while helping a manager separate evidence from confidence, polish and personal resemblance.
Five well-chosen questions can cover the role’s hardest demands without turning the interview into an interrogation. They should reveal what a person has done, how they reason and what support they need to succeed. The wording matters: vague requests such as “tell me about yourself” produce little comparable evidence, while focused prompts allow interviewers to probe without making assumptions.
Australian workplaces add practical dimensions to this judgement. A role in a Sydney office may involve hybrid work, while hospitality or logistics work around Brisbane can depend heavily on shift rosters and public holidays. Pay may need to be checked against Fair Work minimums and applicable awards, superannuation may affect the total package, and every employee needs an appropriate Right to Work check.
Treat the questions as one part of a documented hiring process. Define the criteria, use the same core questions for each finalist, take notes during the conversation and score answers after the evidence is fresh. This structure improves the candidate experience as well as the decision, especially where applicants compare an organisation with other opportunities in Melbourne, Adelaide or their local labour market.
Define the role before drafting questions
Begin with outcomes rather than a list of personality labels. Write down three results the person must deliver in the first six months, the tools they must use and the constraints they will face. Ask a question that seeks an example connected to each outcome. For a customer support role, that might be handling a difficult case; for a trades role, it could be diagnosing an intermittent fault safely and on schedule.
Turn each outcome into a candidate question that can expose relevant judgement. “Show us a time you achieved a difficult result” is stronger than “Are you a hard worker?” because it asks for evidence. “How did you decide what to prioritise?” is useful when the work will regularly change. “What information would you need in week one?” tests preparation without presuming the candidate lacks confidence.
A neutral information page, such as general site information, can organise links and background material, but the hiring brief must remain specific about the actual job. A generic overview cannot settle whether the role is full-time or casual, who the manager will be, or which weekend and evening shifts are routinely required. Clear internal notes prevent interviewers from asking different versions of the same assessment.
Ask for evidence and working examples
Ask for examples that contain an action, a decision and an outcome. Behavioural evidence is useful because it shows how someone behaved under real conditions, while situational questions test reasoning about a plausible future problem. A construction supervisor might be asked how to respond when a delivery is delayed; a small-business hire might be asked how to prioritise competing customers when two arrive together.
Make the scenario neither trivial nor rigged. People in Australian teams often appreciate a direct, friendly exchange, but a friendly “give it a burl” attitude does not prove they can manage risk or meet service standards. Give every candidate the same scenario, the same time to think and the same access to relevant facts. Let them explain their assumptions before scoring the response.
Use follow-up questions to test depth rather than to catch a rehearsed answer. Ask what they personally did, what alternatives they rejected, who else was involved and how they judged success. A concise example followed by a challenge is more revealing than a long story with no evidence. Keep questions relevant to the role, and avoid requests about family, health or other personal matters that do not predict performance.
Compare answers with a consistent score
The comparison below gives the panel a common reference point. Score each answer on a simple scale, then discuss the evidence rather than the personality impression.
| Question | What to listen for | Useful follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Can you give an example of a difficult result you achieved? | A specific action, sound judgement and measurable result | What did you personally do, and what changed? |
| How do you decide what to prioritise when demands compete? | Clear criteria, reasonable trade-offs and willingness to escalate | Which factor would have changed your decision? |
| Tell us about a time you handled disagreement or conflict. | Active listening, evidence and respectful boundaries | How did you check whether the issue was resolved? |
| What would you do in your first 90 days? | A relevant learning plan, realistic assumptions and an early contribution | Which early outcome would you prioritise? |
| What conditions help you do your best work, and what would concern you? | Honest needs, workable boundaries and self-awareness | How would you raise a concern with your manager? |
Score each response from one to five against the criteria set before the interviews. A score of one should mean the answer offers no relevant evidence; five should mean the answer is specific, sound and strongly relevant. Use the follow-up questions consistently, especially when one candidate supplies more detail than another, so extra talk does not create an accidental advantage.
Panel members should record their scores before discussing them. Then compare patterns: two people may reach the same conclusion through different experiences, and that can be a strength. A disagreement is useful when it points to missing evidence, unclear priorities or an important risk. The final choice should follow the weighted criteria, not the person who spoke longest or seemed most familiar.
Check Australian employment realities
Employment conditions deserve direct testing. Establish whether the position is an employee or contractor, whether it is full-time, part-time or casual, and which award or agreement may apply. Australian employers must meet National Employment Standards, pay applicable minimums or award rates, and generally make superannuation contributions when the eligibility rules are met. Explain these basics without turning the interview into a contract negotiation.
Ask permission to complete required checks and explain why they are needed. Right to Work checks must be genuine and proportionate; identity, qualifications and references also need lawful, relevant handling. Candidates should know who will contact a referee and what information will be sought. Avoid questions that could expose protected characteristics, and assess the same job requirements for every applicant regardless of background.
Claims deserve the same scrutiny as answers. An online bonus terms review, for example, shows why conditions, limitations and evidence matter behind an attractive headline; an employer should be just as clear about pay, rosters and responsibilities. In practical roles, confirm how breakages, public holidays, evening work and travel are handled.
Test judgment, ethics and teamwork
Test judgement with a realistic constraint. Ask what the person would do if safety, cost and customer service pointed in different directions, or what they would sacrifice when a deadline could not be met. Good answers make trade-offs explicit, check facts and consider who needs to be informed. Watch for answers that treat every problem as someone else’s responsibility.
Explore ethics and teamwork without searching for a perfect personality match. Ask how the team should respond to a missed target, unsafe practice, discrimination or a confidential concern. Listen for candour, fairness and proportionate action. A candidate does not need to describe an exact workplace incident they have never faced; they can demonstrate sound principles through a hypothetical case and past behaviour.
Give candidates room to question you. Strong applicants will want to know the manager’s expectations, feedback style, team structure and success measures. Their questions can reveal whether they understand the work, but do not reward polish alone. Compare what each person asks with what the role truly requires, and confirm that the advertised conditions match what the panel is offering.
Turn the five answers into a defensible decision
Turn the answers into a decision rather than a personality contest. Review the criteria, scores, notes, checks and references, then identify any material gaps that still need clarification. Where a concern remains, ask the same fair follow-up you would ask anyone else. The purpose is to reduce uncertainty without becoming so cautious that a capable person is rejected for ordinary differences.
- Write five role-specific questions before interviews begin
- Use identical core wording and scoring for every finalist
- Request concrete examples, decisions and measurable results
- Record independent scores before panel discussion
- Complete lawful checks and keep a clear decision record
References can confirm details that an interview left open, but they should test the same criteria used in the interview. Use job-related questions, obtain consent where required and do not ask a referee to speculate about a candidate’s character. If a reference conflicts with an answer, give the candidate a fair chance to explain the context, especially where work conditions or responsibilities differed from the description.
Make the final choice transparently. State which evidence matched the role’s priorities, record why it was selected and keep unsuccessful applications in line with the organisation’s retention obligations. A sound hiring decision is not the one that avoids every risk; it is the one made with relevant evidence, consistent standards and a clear understanding of Australian workplace obligations.