# Sales Leadership Competency Scorecard > A behavioral-anchor rubric for evaluating VP/Director candidates on coaching, forecasting, org-building, GTM judgment, and executive communication, not just past quota attainment, with a matched interview question bank and weighted scoring matrix. Free scorecard/rubric for sales leaders. Topic: [Sales Leadership & GTM Strategy](https://www.peerlab.ai/library/topic/sales-leadership-gtm-strategy/). Published by PeerLab in the [Sales Enablement Resource Library](https://www.peerlab.ai/library/). Source: https://www.peerlab.ai/library/sales-leadership-competency-scorecard/ ## How to use it Score each criterion 1-5 using the behavioral anchors during and after the interview loop, average by domain, apply the domain weights, and use the threshold table to decide hire, hire-with-a-plan, or no-hire. ## What's inside - 5 competency domains with weighting (Coaching 25%, Forecasting 20%, Org-Building 20%, GTM Judgment 20%, Exec Communication 15%) - 16 scored criteria, each with Level 1 / 3 / 5 behavioral anchors - Behavioral interview question bank mapped to every domain - Reference-check question set focused on developed talent, not self-reported wins - Weighted scoring formula and hire/no-hire decision thresholds Built to evaluate what a quota number can't show you: whether a VP/Director candidate can develop other people, run a forecast that's actually trustworthy, and build a structure that survives the next stage of growth. Score every criterion 1-5 against the behavioral anchors below, resist scoring on "gut feel" or on the strength of their own historical number alone. ## Scoring Scale 1 = Below bar, clear gap · 3 = Solid, meets bar with room to grow · 5 = Exceptional, a genuine differentiator for this hire --- ## Domain A, Coaching & Talent Development (weight 25%) **A1. Skill diagnosis** - L1: Coaches based on deal outcomes only; feedback is generic ("close more deals") - L3: Identifies specific behavioral gaps (e.g., discovery depth, negotiation) from call observation - L5: Runs a systematic skill-diagnosis process across the team; prioritizes coaching investment by which gap most constrains team revenue **A2. Coaching cadence & rigor** - L1: Reactive, ad hoc, tied only to deal reviews - L3: Regular 1:1 coaching cadence with documented follow-up - L5: Coaching is built into the team's operating rhythm with measurable skill-progression tracked over time **A3. Talent bench-building** - L1: Hires reactively when a seat opens - L3: Maintains an active pipeline of bench candidates - L5: Demonstrated track record of promoting from within; can name specific reps developed into managers/leaders **A4. Performance-management courage** - L1: Avoids or delays managing out underperformers - L3: Manages underperformance with documented PIPs on a reasonable timeline - L5: Track record of fast, fair, well-documented decisions the team respects even when painful --- ## Domain B, Forecasting & Pipeline Rigor (weight 20%) **B1. Forecast accuracy** - L1: Gut-feel roll-up of rep-reported numbers - L3: Defined methodology (commit/best-case/pipeline) with historical accuracy tracked - L5: Consistently accurate within ±5-10%, with a clear, documented inspection process behind it **B2. Pipeline hygiene enforcement** - L1: Pipeline is stale/inflated, no enforcement - L3: Regular pipeline scrubs with stage-exit criteria - L5: Stage-exit criteria enforced systematically; can show before/after data on pipeline quality improving **B3. Deal inspection quality** - L1: Deal reviews are status updates - L3: Deal reviews probe MEDDIC/MEDDPICC-style qualification gaps - L5: Deal reviews reliably surface real risk early enough to act, evidenced by reduced late-stage slippage --- ## Domain C, Org-Building & Structure Design (weight 20%) **C1. Structure-to-strategy fit** - L1: Org structure is inherited/default, not tied to GTM strategy - L3: Can articulate why the current structure fits the current stage - L5: Has redesigned org structure at least once in response to a stage change, with documented rationale and measurable outcome **C2. Role clarity & handoffs** - L1: Overlapping/unclear ownership between SDR/AE/CSM causes friction - L3: Clear role definitions and handoff criteria exist - L5: Handoff points are instrumented/measured (e.g., SQL-to-close conversion by source) and iterated on **C3. Comp plan design competence** - L1: Delegates comp design entirely; can't explain the mechanics - L3: Can explain pay mix, accelerators, and the rationale behind the current plan - L5: Has personally redesigned a comp plan to fix a specific behavior problem (e.g., sandbagging, discounting), with before/after evidence --- ## Domain D, Strategic GTM Judgment (weight 20%) **D1. ICP & segmentation clarity** - L1: Team pursues any lead that shows interest - L3: Documented ICP exists and is used in qualification - L5: Has evolved ICP based on win/loss and cohort retention data, not just intuition **D2. Channel/motion fit** - L1: Applies one motion regardless of segment - L3: Can articulate which motion fits which segment and why - L5: Track record of shifting motion (e.g., adding PLG or a partner channel) in response to changing unit economics **D3. Pricing & packaging fluency** - L1: Treats pricing as fixed / someone else's problem - L3: Understands current pricing rationale and common discounting patterns - L5: Has directly influenced a pricing/packaging change based on field evidence (win/loss, expansion data) --- ## Domain E, Executive Communication & Board Readiness (weight 15%) **E1. Narrative clarity** - L1: Updates are data dumps without a point of view - L3: Presents a clear narrative connecting numbers to a story - L5: Has presented directly to a board/exec team and can describe how the narrative changed a decision **E2. Bad-news delivery** - L1: Surfaces bad news late or softened - L3: Surfaces risk early with a plan attached - L5: Peers/references describe them as "you always know where you stand," even in misses **E3. Cross-functional influence** - L1: Operates in a sales silo - L3: Working relationships with Marketing/CS/Product leadership - L5: Has driven a cross-functional initiative (pricing change, roadmap input) using field evidence --- ## Interview Question Bank (mapped to domain) - **A:** "Tell me about a rep who was underperforming: walk me through your diagnosis, the specific coaching plan, and the outcome, good or bad." / "Name someone you've promoted into leadership: what specifically did you see in them, and what did you do to develop it?" - **B:** "Walk me through how you build a forecast today, from rep input to the number you give your CRO/board. Where has it been wrong, and what did you change?" / "Tell me about a deal that slipped that shouldn't have, what did the process fail to catch?" - **C:** "Walk me through an org structure you inherited or built and why it's shaped that way. What would break if you doubled headcount in 6 months?" / "Tell me about a time you changed a comp plan: what behavior were you fixing, and did it work?" - **D:** "How do you define your ICP today, and what's changed it in the last year?" / "Tell me about a GTM motion you added or killed, and the evidence that drove the call." - **E:** "Tell me about the hardest piece of bad news you've had to deliver to your CRO, CEO, or board. How did you handle it?" / "Tell me about a time your read on the business changed a decision above your level." ## Reference-Check Question Set - "1-5, how would you rate their coaching: not their own selling, their ability to make others better?" - "Tell me about a specific rep or manager they developed. What's that person doing now?" - "How accurate was their forecast historically? Any big misses, and how did they handle them?" - "Did they ever have to restructure the team or manage someone out? How was it handled?" - "What's the one thing you'd want their next employer to know before hiring them?" ## Scoring & Decision Matrix **Weighted Score = Σ (Domain Average Score × Domain Weight)** | Weighted Score | Decision | |---|---| | 4.0 - 5.0 | Strong hire | | 3.0 - 3.9 | Hire, with a specific 90-day development plan targeting the lowest-scoring domain | | 2.0 - 2.9 | Proceed only if one exceptional domain offsets the gap, paired with a strong deputy/RevOps partner in the weak area | | < 2.0 | No hire |