Culture Interview Script Generator Make your own script

Example scripts · A Swedish workplace-culture startup hiring for Togetherness, Trust, and Simplicity.

Culture-interview script — Fikabord

Fikabord Culture Interview Script

📅 Interview Information

  • Candidate Name:
  • Date:
  • Lead Interviewer:
  • Shadow Interviewer:
  • Duration: 60 minutes

🔍 Objective

The purpose of this interview is to assess the candidate's alignment with Fikabord's core values through open-ended, behavior-based questions:

  • Togetherness: Decisions over coffee, not memos.
  • Trust: Freedom with responsibility.
  • Simplicity: We remove more than we add.

These questions are designed to explore how the candidate has demonstrated each value in real-world settings. This is not a test of theoretical knowledge—we are evaluating how the person naturally behaves and what they prioritize in a professional context.

🔧 Interviewer Instructions

Before the interview

  • Make a copy of the script, one for each interviewer.
  • Decide who will be the lead interviewer and who will shadow.
  • Make sure you have the meeting invite and that the VC link is added.

During the interview

  • Encourage STAR responses: Situation, Task, Action, Result.
  • Use the script questions and allow the candidate to talk (ask and wait, don't lead the candidate!).
  • Ask each question using the English version; use a translated version only if the candidate needs it, and capture the answers in English.
  • If an answer stays in "we" terms, ask "What did you personally do?" before judging it — collective phrasing is a modesty norm in many cultures and is not itself a negative signal.
  • If an answer echoes the value's own language or just lists activities ("I ran a workshop", "I aligned everyone") without a concrete personal action, probe "What specifically did you decide or do, and what changed?" before scoring — reward substance over rehearsed value-talk.
  • Judge the candidate's reasoning, honesty, and learning — not whether the story ended well. A well-reasoned decision that failed, or an honest account of a tradeoff that left some unhappy, can score at the top; a polished everything-worked-out answer is not automatically better.
  • Take clear notes in the provided space.
  • Manage the time and move the candidate along if they stray off from answering the questions.

After the interview

  • To avoid anchoring each other do not share impressions or scores with the other interviewer until both have submitted feedback.
  • Use the positive/negative signals for each question to guide scoring, marking the parts in the answers with ✅ or 🚩.
  • Score each value independently after the interview using the rubric, based on the signals you detected in the candidate's answers.
  • Do not base your decision on anything other than the signals from this interview.

👋 Example Candidate Introduction (make it yours and personal)

Welcome the candidate and explain the purpose of the interview:

"Hi [Candidate Name], and thank you for joining us today.

In this interview, we'll talk about how you work and behave in different types of situations.

We'll ask you some open-ended questions about past experiences and we have a script for this, to minimize the risk of bias and to ensure all interviews are conducted in the same structure.

There are no right or wrong answers here—our goal is to get to know you better and see how your approach aligns with our company values.

I will be leading the interview today and my colleague [shadow interviewer name] will also be taking part. We will both be taking notes on our laptops so please forgive the typing noise in the background!

I'll try to manage the time and move us along if necessary, so you get at least 10 minutes at the end to ask us any questions you might have.

If you are comfortable and feel ready let's jump right in!"

🎙️ INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

🌟 Togetherness

Decisions over coffee, not memos.

❓ Question 1

  • 🇬🇧 Think of a time when you had to make a decision or complete a task that would have been easier if you had done it alone, but you chose to involve others. What did you do and why?
  • 🇸🇪 Tänk på en gång när du var tvungen att fatta ett beslut eller slutföra en uppgift som hade varit enklare om du gjort det ensam, men du valde att involvera andra. Vad gjorde du och varför?

Why we ask: This question is designed to assess the candidate's willingness to prioritize collaboration even when it's not the most convenient option. It reveals how they weigh the benefits of teamwork against the ease of doing it solo.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate explains a thoughtful decision to involve others, highlighting the benefits they sought.
    • "I knew I could handle it alone, but I wanted to get different perspectives to ensure we covered all bases."
    • "I involved others because I felt their input would lead to a more robust solution."
  2. ✅ Candidate describes specific actions taken to engage others, showing initiative in collaboration.
    • "I organized a brainstorming session to gather everyone's ideas."
    • "I reached out to team members individually to get their input."
  3. ✅ Candidate reflects on the tradeoffs and acknowledges the challenges of involving others.
    • "It took longer to reach a decision, but I believe the outcome was stronger."
    • "It was challenging to coordinate everyone's schedules, but the diverse perspectives were worth it."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate focuses solely on the challenges without recognizing the benefits of involving others.
    • "It was too time-consuming to involve others, so I just did it myself."
    • "I tried involving others, but it was too slow and I ended up doing everything."
  2. 🚩 Candidate describes involving others as a formality or obligation, not a strategic choice.
    • "I included others because it's what we're supposed to do, but I didn't really need their input."
    • "I only asked for input because it was part of the process, not because it added value."
  3. 🚩 Candidate provides a generic answer without specific examples of actions taken.
    • "I always involve others because teamwork is important."
    • "I think collaboration is key, so I usually ask for input."

❓ Question 2

  • 🇬🇧 Describe a project where you were responsible for leading a team to achieve a goal. How did you manage the process from start to finish?
  • 🇸🇪 Beskriv ett projekt där du ansvarade för att leda ett team mot ett mål. Hur hanterade du processen från början till slut?

Why we ask: This question aims to uncover the candidate's natural approach to teamwork when they are in charge. It reveals how they foster collaboration and manage group dynamics.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate outlines specific strategies used to engage the team and encourage collaboration.
    • "I set up regular check-ins to ensure everyone was aligned and had a chance to share their thoughts."
    • "I made sure everyone understood their role and how it contributed to the team's success."
  2. ✅ Candidate provides a detailed account of their leadership style and how it facilitated teamwork.
    • "I encouraged open communication by creating an environment where everyone felt safe to speak up."
    • "I delegated tasks based on each member's strengths and encouraged them to collaborate."
  3. ✅ Candidate reflects on challenges faced during the process and how they were addressed.
    • "We hit a roadblock due to differing opinions, but I organized a meeting to find common ground."
    • "Some team members were hesitant to contribute, so I worked on building their confidence."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate describes a top-down approach with little input from the team.
    • "I made all the key decisions and assigned tasks without much team input."
    • "I led the project by setting strict guidelines that the team followed."
  2. 🚩 Candidate's account lacks specific examples of fostering collaboration or team engagement.
    • "I just managed the tasks and deadlines; the team knew what to do."
    • "I gave everyone their tasks and expected them to complete them."
  3. 🚩 Candidate focuses more on their personal achievements rather than team success.
    • "I drove the project to success by focusing on my part of the work."
    • "I ensured my segment of the project was completed perfectly."

❓ Question 3

  • 🇬🇧 Tell me about a time when your way of working with others was questioned or didn't lead to the expected results. How did you handle it?
  • 🇸🇪 Berätta om en gång när ditt sätt att arbeta med andra ifrågasattes eller inte ledde till de förväntade resultaten. Hur hanterade du det?

Why we ask: This question explores how the candidate deals with criticism or failure in a collaborative context. It assesses their ability to reflect and adapt when their approach to teamwork is challenged.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate shows willingness to reflect on feedback and make necessary changes to their approach.
    • "I took the feedback seriously and adjusted my approach to better support the team."
    • "I realized my initial plan wasn't working, so I consulted with the team to find a better solution."
  2. ✅ Candidate describes specific actions taken to address the issue and improve team collaboration.
    • "I organized a meeting to discuss the feedback and brainstorm improvements with the team."
    • "I openly acknowledged the issues and worked with the team to implement changes."
  3. ✅ Candidate demonstrates learning from the experience and applying it in future situations.
    • "I learned the importance of seeking input earlier in the process."
    • "This experience taught me to be more flexible and open to others' ideas."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate dismisses the feedback or fails to recognize the need for change.
    • "I didn't think the feedback was valid, so I continued with my approach."
    • "I believed my way was still the best, so I didn't make any changes."
  2. 🚩 Candidate provides a vague response without specific examples of actions taken or lessons learned.
    • "I just tried to improve based on the feedback."
    • "I worked harder to address the issues, but didn't specify how."
  3. 🚩 Candidate focuses on external factors and does not take responsibility for their role in the situation.
    • "The problem was more about the team's dynamics, not my approach."
    • "The project's failure was due to circumstances beyond my control."

🤝 Trust

Freedom with responsibility.

❓ Question 1

  • 🇬🇧 Describe a time when you had full ownership of a project or task and had to make a significant decision without guidance. What did you do and how did you handle the responsibility?
  • 🇸🇪 Beskriv en gång när du hade fullt ansvar för ett projekt eller en uppgift och var tvungen att fatta ett viktigt beslut utan vägledning. Vad gjorde du och hur hanterade du ansvaret?

Why we ask: This question aims to uncover the candidate's natural approach to managing freedom and responsibility by examining their decision-making process when they had complete control over a project or task.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Demonstrates thoughtful decision-making with clear reasoning.
    • "I analyzed the data thoroughly and considered potential risks before making the decision."
    • "I sought input from colleagues to ensure I was considering different perspectives."
  2. ✅ Shows a strong sense of ownership and accountability.
    • "I made sure to follow through on my decision and was prepared to take responsibility for the outcome."
    • "I accepted the consequences of my decision and worked on mitigating any negative effects."
  3. ✅ Reflects on the experience to learn and improve.
    • "After the project, I reviewed what went well and what could have been done better."
    • "I used the experience to refine my approach for future projects."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Lacks clear reasoning or fails to explain the decision-making process.
    • "I just went with my gut feeling without much analysis."
    • "I didn't really think it through, I just made a quick decision."
  2. 🚩 Avoids taking full responsibility for the decision or outcome.
    • "I figured someone else would step in if it went wrong."
    • "I wasn't really responsible for the outcome, so I didn't focus much on it."
  3. 🚩 Fails to reflect on the decision to derive learnings.
    • "I didn't really look back on it; I just moved on to the next thing."
    • "I didn't think there was anything to learn from that situation."

❓ Question 2

  • 🇬🇧 Tell me about a time when someone challenged your approach to handling a task or project. How did you respond, and what was the outcome?
  • 🇸🇪 Berätta om en gång när någon ifrågasatte ditt sätt att hantera en uppgift eller projekt. Hur reagerade du, och vad blev resultatet?

Why we ask: This question probes how the candidate deals with conflict or criticism regarding their approach, examining their ability to maintain trust and responsibly handle disagreements or corrections.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Open to feedback and constructive criticism.
    • "I listened to their concerns and adjusted my approach accordingly."
    • "I took their feedback seriously and collaborated to find a better solution."
  2. ✅ Demonstrates adaptability and willingness to change course when necessary.
    • "I realized they had a valid point and changed my plan based on their input."
    • "I was flexible and incorporated their suggestions into the project."
  3. ✅ Reflects on the challenge to improve future interactions.
    • "I learned to communicate more effectively and be clearer about my intentions."
    • "I used the experience to improve my collaboration skills."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Dismisses or ignores feedback without consideration.
    • "I didn't really pay attention to their concerns and continued as planned."
    • "I felt their feedback wasn't important, so I didn't make any changes."
  2. 🚩 Sticks rigidly to their approach without evaluating alternative perspectives.
    • "I was confident in my approach and didn't see the need to change anything."
    • "I didn't consider their viewpoint because I believed my way was the best."
  3. 🚩 Fails to reflect on the experience for learning.
    • "I didn't see any value in reflecting on that situation."
    • "I didn't think there was anything to take away from that experience."

❓ Question 3

  • 🇬🇧 Think of a situation where you had to balance your responsibilities with the needs of your team or stakeholders. What was the situation, and how did you handle it?
  • 🇸🇪 Tänk på en situation där du var tvungen att balansera ditt ansvar med behoven hos ditt team eller intressenter. Vad var situationen och hur hanterade du det?

Why we ask: This question examines the candidate's ability to balance personal responsibility with team or stakeholder needs, highlighting their approach to maintaining trust and responsibility in complex interpersonal dynamics.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Clearly prioritizes responsibilities while considering team or stakeholder needs.
    • "I ensured that my tasks were completed while also addressing the team's concerns."
    • "I balanced my workload with supporting the team to meet their goals."
  2. ✅ Communicates effectively to manage expectations and responsibilities.
    • "I kept everyone informed about progress and any changes in priorities."
    • "I made sure to communicate any potential impacts on their work early on."
  3. ✅ Reflects on the experience to improve future interactions.
    • "I learned to better assess priorities and communicate more effectively."
    • "The experience taught me how to manage my time and responsibilities more efficiently."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Fails to consider team or stakeholder needs adequately.
    • "I focused solely on my tasks and didn't really consider others."
    • "I didn't think it was my responsibility to manage their needs."
  2. 🚩 Poor communication leading to misunderstandings or unmet expectations.
    • "I didn't really update them on my progress, which caused some confusion."
    • "I assumed they knew what to expect without explicitly telling them."
  3. 🚩 Lacks reflection on the situation to drive improvement.
    • "I didn't look back on the situation; it seemed fine at the time."
    • "I didn't think there was anything to learn from that experience."

🎯 Simplicity

We remove more than we add.

❓ Question 1

  • 🇬🇧 Describe a time when your initial plan or solution turned out to be more complex than necessary, and you had to simplify it. What did you do and what was the outcome?
  • 🇸🇪 Beskriv ett tillfälle då din ursprungliga plan eller lösning visade sig vara mer komplicerad än nödvändigt, och du behövde förenkla den. Vad gjorde du och vad blev resultatet?

Why we ask: This question assesses the candidate's ability to recognize and rectify unnecessary complexity in their work, demonstrating their commitment to simplicity even when it requires revisiting their initial approach.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate recognized the complexity and took steps to simplify the solution.
    • "I realized my initial design was too complicated and stripped it down to the essentials."
    • "After feedback, I simplified the process by removing unnecessary steps."
  2. ✅ Candidate showed understanding of the impact of complexity on the project's success.
    • "I noticed the complexity was causing delays, so I prioritized simplification."
    • "Realizing the complexity was confusing for others, I made it more straightforward."
  3. ✅ Candidate reflects on what they learned about avoiding complexity in future projects.
    • "I learned to start with a simpler approach before adding layers."
    • "This taught me to evaluate the necessity of each component from the start."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate failed to recognize or address the complexity in their approach.
    • "I just followed through with the original complex plan without questioning it."
    • "I didn't see the complexity as an issue until it was too late."
  2. 🚩 Candidate shows lack of ownership in simplifying the approach.
    • "It wasn't really my job to simplify; others were responsible."
    • "I assumed someone else would simplify it later."
  3. 🚩 Candidate's solution remained overly complex, impacting the outcome negatively.
    • "The complexity remained, and it led to issues with implementation."
    • "We stuck with the complex approach, which made it hard for others to follow."

❓ Question 2

  • 🇬🇧 Tell me about a time you worked with a team to streamline a process or reduce unnecessary elements. What was your role, and how did you achieve this?
  • 🇸🇪 Berätta om en gång när du arbetade med ett team för att effektivisera en process eller minska onödiga element. Vilken var din roll, och hur uppnådde ni detta?

Why we ask: This question evaluates the candidate's ability to collaborate with others to achieve simplicity by reducing unnecessary aspects of a process, focusing on their personal contribution and role.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate took proactive steps to streamline the process.
    • "I identified redundant steps and suggested removing them."
    • "I led the discussion on what could be cut out to make the process leaner."
  2. ✅ Candidate effectively collaborated with the team to achieve a simpler process.
    • "I worked closely with the team to ensure everyone agreed on the simplifications."
    • "By facilitating open dialogue, we collectively trimmed down the process."
  3. ✅ Candidate reflects on the impact of their actions on the process's efficiency.
    • "After our changes, the process was noticeably faster and easier."
    • "The streamlined process improved our team's productivity significantly."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate did not actively participate in the simplification effort.
    • "I let others handle the simplification; I just followed along."
    • "I wasn't really involved in deciding what to remove."
  2. 🚩 Candidate's actions did not contribute significantly to reducing unnecessary elements.
    • "I didn't suggest any changes myself; I just agreed with others."
    • "I didn't think any changes were necessary, so I didn't push for simplification."
  3. 🚩 Candidate shows lack of awareness of the importance of simplification in team efforts.
    • "I didn't see the point of simplifying; the process seemed fine as it was."
    • "I focused on my tasks without considering the overall process."

❓ Question 3

  • 🇬🇧 Can you walk me through a situation where you had to choose between maintaining simplicity and meeting another business priority, like speed or cost? What did you decide and why?
  • 🇸🇪 Kan du beskriva en situation där du behövde välja mellan att behålla enkelhet och att möta en annan affärsprioritet, som hastighet eller kostnad? Vad bestämde du och varför?

Why we ask: This question explores the candidate's ability to balance simplicity with other competing business priorities, such as speed or cost, and their decision-making process in such situations.

Candidate's answer:

Positive Signals
  1. ✅ Candidate demonstrates thoughtful consideration of both simplicity and the competing priority.
    • "I weighed the long-term benefits of simplicity against the immediate need for speed."
    • "I considered how complexity might increase costs in the future."
  2. ✅ Candidate made a decision that balanced both priorities effectively.
    • "I chose a simpler solution that slightly delayed the timeline but was more sustainable."
    • "I opted for a costlier but simpler design that reduced future maintenance."
  3. ✅ Candidate reflects on the tradeoff and what they learned from it.
    • "This taught me to evaluate both short and long-term impacts of complexity."
    • "I learned that sometimes a simple approach is worth a short-term sacrifice."
Negative Signals
  1. 🚩 Candidate prioritizes the other business priority without considering simplicity.
    • "I chose speed over simplicity without much thought."
    • "Cost was my only concern, so I didn't focus on simplifying."
  2. 🚩 Candidate fails to articulate the reasoning behind their decision.
    • "I didn't really think about the tradeoff; I just went with what seemed urgent."
    • "I can't recall why I chose that approach; it was just instinct."
  3. 🚩 Candidate's decision led to increased complexity without clear justification.
    • "We ended up with a complex solution that didn't really serve its purpose."
    • "I added layers to the process that complicated it unnecessarily."

📍 Wrap-Up

Close the interview in a warm and respectful way:

"Thank you so much for sharing your experiences with us. It's been a pleasure to learn more about you and how you approach your work. If you have any questions for us, we'd be happy to answer them now."

❓ Questions from the Candidate

This is a two-way moment for the candidate to interview you — it is not a scored value. It has no rubric and no row in the feedback table below. Use what you notice only as soft context for your overall impression, never as a score.

  • 🇬🇧 Do you have any questions for us?
  • 🇸🇪 Har du några frågor till oss?

Why we ask: Assesses how thoughtfully the candidate evaluates company culture and fit.

Candidate's answer:

👂 What's encouraging to hear

  1. "Asked thoughtful questions about team dynamics, leadership style, or values."
  2. "Expressed genuine curiosity about how people grow here."
  3. "Listened attentively to the response and asked follow-up questions."
  4. "Inquired about how feedback is given or collaboration is structured."
  5. "Mentioned how their goals align with the company's mission."

👂 What's worth noting

  1. "Had no questions and showed limited curiosity."
  2. "Focused only on compensation, vacation, or perks."
  3. "Seemed disengaged or ended the conversation abruptly."
  4. "Expressed doubts about company direction without constructive framing."
  5. "Did not react to interviewer responses or seemed uninterested."

📝 Feedback on Interview

Complete this section independently after the interview. Do not discuss scores or impressions with co-interviewers.

🔢 Scoring Rubric

For each value, assign a score from 1 to 5:

Togetherness

Score Description
1 – Minimal Candidate provides vague responses with little evidence of collaborative actions or reflections on their role in teamwork. Does not demonstrate an understanding of the value of involving others.
2 – Developing Candidate shows some awareness of the importance of teamwork but lacks specific examples or fails to demonstrate a proactive approach to collaboration. Limited reflection on personal role or learning.
3 – Competent Candidate provides clear examples of engaging with others and shows some reflection on challenges faced. Demonstrates an understanding of teamwork's benefits but may lack depth in reasoning or adaptation.
4 – Proficient Candidate offers detailed accounts of collaborative actions and decisions, showing a strong commitment to involving others. Reflects thoughtfully on experiences and demonstrates learning from challenges.
5 – Excellent Candidate provides rich, specific examples of prioritizing collaboration even in difficult situations. Demonstrates deep reflection on experiences, with clear evidence of learning and adaptation. Strong reasoning and ownership of teamwork outcomes, regardless of success.

Trust

Score Description
1 – Misaligned The candidate shows little to no evidence of balancing freedom with responsibility. They lack ownership, do not reflect on their actions, and dismiss feedback or team needs.
2 – Developing The candidate shows some awareness of responsibility but struggles to consistently apply it. They may avoid full ownership or fail to adequately reflect on or learn from experiences.
3 – Aligned The candidate demonstrates a reasonable balance of freedom with responsibility. They take ownership, consider feedback, and reflect on their actions, though their reasoning or reflection may lack depth.
4 – Strongly Aligned The candidate effectively balances freedom with responsibility. They show strong ownership, thoughtfully consider feedback, and reflect deeply on their experiences to improve future performance.
5 – Exemplary The candidate consistently excels in balancing freedom with responsibility. They take full ownership, integrate feedback constructively, and demonstrate profound reflection and learning, even in challenging situations.

Simplicity

Score Description
1 – Unaware The candidate shows little to no awareness of the importance of simplicity, with no examples of simplifying efforts or reflections on complexity.
2 – Basic Awareness The candidate shows basic awareness of simplicity but offers limited examples or understanding of how to implement it effectively, often lacking personal involvement.
3 – Developing The candidate provides examples of simplifying efforts, with some understanding and involvement, but lacks depth in reasoning or reflection on outcomes.
4 – Proficient The candidate demonstrates a solid understanding of simplicity through specific examples, showing good reasoning, involvement, and reflection on the impact of their actions.
5 – Exemplary The candidate exhibits deep commitment to simplicity, providing detailed examples with strong reasoning and insightful reflections, even when faced with challenges or failures.

✍️ Feedback Table

Value Score Justification
Togetherness <insert score 1-5> <insert justification, citing the signals you marked>
Trust <insert score 1-5> <insert justification, citing the signals you marked>
Simplicity <insert score 1-5> <insert justification, citing the signals you marked>

🧭 How to read the scores

These scores support your judgment — they are not an automated pass/fail. Value fit predicts engagement and retention, not job performance, so treat this as one input alongside a separate skills assessment, never as a verdict on its own.

Guidance for combining the scores (adjust to your role and context):

  • Look at the pattern across values, not an average — one strong value does not offset a serious gap in another.
  • As a default passing bar, look for no value scored below 3, with the values most critical to this role at 4 or above. A 1–2 on any value is a signal to slow down and discuss, not an automatic reject.
  • Integrity floor. For any value about honesty, fairness, ethics, safety, or trust, a serious concern (a genuine 🚩, roughly a 1–2) outweighs high scores elsewhere — do not proceed on strong scores alone. Raise it explicitly before recommending a hire.
  • Where scores are borderline, the evidence you marked (✅/🚩) decides — cite it in your recommendation below rather than relying on an overall feeling.

✅ Final Recommendation

<insert your recommendation — this supports the hiring team's decision, it is not the decision>

🧭 Recommendation Justification

<Insert 2-3 sentences, citing the specific signals and scores that drive your recommendation>

When finished please send this document to .

End of Interview Script

Make a script for your company values