How to Use the Executive Chef Interview Template

Why structured executive chef interviews matter

An executive chef hire is one of the highest-impact decisions you'll make. This person shapes your culinary identity, manages a substantial portion of your P&L, builds and retains your kitchen talent, and ultimately determines whether guests come back. A bad hire at this level doesn't just waste a salary - it destabilises your entire kitchen operation, damages supplier relationships that took years to build, and can erode team morale across the business within weeks.

The temptation with executive chef interviews is to rely on reputation, portfolio, and "feel." But subjective hiring at this level leads to expensive mistakes. A chef with a stellar CV might be a terrible leader. Someone with Michelin experience might have no understanding of food costs. A candidate who dazzles in conversation might crumble under the sustained pressure of running your kitchen day after day.

This template provides a structured 60-minute framework that assesses the five competencies that predict executive chef success: leadership experience, culinary vision, financial management, quality standards, and supplier relationships. The weighted scoring system ensures you evaluate candidates against what actually matters for your operation rather than being swayed by charisma or name recognition.

Pre-Interview Preparation

Before the candidate arrives, work through this checklist to ensure you're ready for a thorough, professional interview.

Review candidate CV and culinary portfolio - At this level, you're looking for trajectory, not just titles. Where did they train? How long did they stay at each property? Did the operations they led improve or decline during their tenure? Look at their portfolio for creativity and commercial awareness - menus that are beautiful but financially unsustainable tell you something important. Cross-reference claims against publicly available information (awards, press coverage, restaurant openings).

Prepare interview area - Executive chef candidates are evaluating you as much as you're evaluating them. A dishevelled office or a noisy corner of the restaurant signals that you don't take the hire seriously. Use a quiet, professional space. Have water available. Treat this as you would a meeting with a potential business partner, because that's essentially what it is.

Have scoring sheets and pen ready - Document responses in real time. At this level, candidates often give nuanced, lengthy answers that are impossible to reconstruct accurately from memory. If you're interviewing three executive chef candidates over a week, precise notes are the difference between a good decision and a guess.

Ensure 60 minutes uninterrupted time - Brief your team that you're unavailable. An executive chef candidate who sees you interrupted repeatedly by operational problems will either question your management capability or wonder what kind of chaos they'd be inheriting.

Review kitchen P&L and strategic goals - You need to discuss financials credibly. Know your current food cost percentage, labour cost, covers per service, and average spend. Understand your strategic goals for the next 12-24 months. Candidates at this level will ask probing questions about your business, and vague answers erode their confidence in the opportunity.

Customisation tips:

• For multi-site operations, prepare a brief overview of each location's performance and challenges
• For new openings, have the concept document, projected covers, and target food cost ready
• For hotel kitchens, prepare information about banqueting targets, room service volumes, and F&B department structure
• For operations in financial difficulty, decide in advance how transparent you'll be about the challenges - serious candidates will appreciate honesty

Candidate Details

Record the candidate's full name exactly as they prefer to be called. At this level, some chefs go by a professional name that differs from their legal name - note both if applicable.

Document when the interview took place. Executive chef searches often extend over several weeks with multiple rounds. Precise records help you compare candidates fairly and manage follow-up timelines.

Leadership Experience

Why this question matters:

An executive chef who can cook but can't lead is a head chef in the wrong job. The executive chef role is fundamentally about leadership - building a brigade that delivers consistently, developing talent so your best people stay, managing underperformers before they damage the team, and creating a kitchen culture that attracts strong candidates. Poor kitchen leadership manifests as high turnover, inconsistent food quality, grievances, and an atmosphere that guests can sense even from the dining room.

The difference between a competent head chef and a genuine executive chef is often the scale and sophistication of their leadership. You need someone who has moved beyond managing a single service to thinking about organisational structure, succession planning, and long-term team development.

What good answers look like:

• Describes specific brigade sizes and structures they've built or inherited ("I restructured a 28-chef brigade across three outlets into specialised teams with dedicated section leaders, which reduced our labour cost by 4% while improving consistency")
• Gives concrete examples of developing individual chefs ("My sous chef when I started had been passed over for promotion twice. I identified the gap was financial management, not cooking. I gave her P&L responsibility for one outlet and within 18 months she was ready for her own kitchen")
• Shows understanding of different leadership approaches for different situations ("When I arrived, morale was low after the previous chef's departure. My first priority was stability - I kept the existing menu running while spending time understanding each team member's strengths and concerns before making any changes")
• Discusses how they handle underperformance with specific examples ("I had a CDP who was technically excellent but consistently late and disruptive. I documented the issues, had three structured conversations over six weeks, and when behaviour didn't change, I managed them out properly. The team's relief was visible")
• References retention rates or team stability as a point of pride ("In my last role, kitchen turnover dropped from 45% to 18% over two years. I attribute that to consistent standards, genuine development opportunities, and being honest with people about their prospects")
• Acknowledges leadership mistakes and what they learned ("Early in my career I promoted a talented cook to sous chef too quickly. They couldn't handle the management side and it damaged both their confidence and the team dynamic. Now I build management skills gradually before formalising promotions")

Red flags to watch for:

• All leadership described in terms of authority and control rather than development and support
• Cannot name specific chefs they've developed or explain their development approach
• Every team problem was caused by someone else - HR, ownership, the previous chef
• Describes leading by fear or intensity as if it were a positive management style
• Claims to run kitchens with zero turnover - this is either dishonest or means they're not addressing performance issues
• No examples beyond the most recent role, suggesting limited genuine leadership experience
• Talks exclusively about Michelin stars, awards, or media appearances rather than day-to-day leadership
• Inability to explain how they'd adapt their leadership style to your specific operation

Customisation tips:

• For restaurant groups, focus on how they've led across multiple locations simultaneously
• For single-site fine dining, probe depth of development - how they've grown CDPs into sous chefs
• For hotel operations, explore how they've navigated matrix management with F&B directors and GMs
• For operations with young teams, ask specifically about developing early-career chefs
• For turnaround situations, focus on how they've rebuilt demoralised or underperforming teams

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Proven leader of large brigades with clear development philosophy, specific examples of growing talent, demonstrable impact on retention and team performance across multiple operations
• 4 - Good: Strong leadership with genuine team-building examples, understands different approaches for different situations, has developed individuals with measurable results
• 3 - Average: Some leadership experience but limited to smaller teams or single outlets, developing their management approach, shows potential but lacks breadth
• 2 - Below Average: Limited team management beyond directing a service, struggles to give specific development examples, may confuse authority with leadership
• 1 - Poor: No meaningful leadership experience, describes management in purely hierarchical terms, no evidence of developing others

Culinary Vision

Why this question matters:

Your executive chef's culinary vision determines your restaurant's identity, market position, and competitive differentiation. A chef without a clear culinary philosophy produces menus that lack coherence - dishes that don't connect to each other, seasonal changes that feel random, and a brand identity that guests can't articulate. In a competitive market, culinary vision is what makes guests choose you over the restaurant next door.

Equally important is the ability to align that vision with commercial reality. A chef whose creativity ignores food costs, guest preferences, or your brand positioning will produce beautiful food that bankrupts the business. You need someone whose culinary ambition and commercial awareness work together rather than pulling in opposite directions.

What good answers look like:

• Articulates a clear, specific culinary philosophy that goes beyond buzzwords ("I believe in ingredient-led cooking that celebrates British produce. My menus start with what's genuinely best that week from my suppliers, not with a concept I'm trying to force ingredients into. That means the menu changes often, which guests appreciate because there's always a reason to return")
• Explains how they'd approach your specific brand and market position ("Based on what I know about your operation, I'd look at strengthening the lunch offering - your evening menu has a clear identity but lunch feels like a different restaurant. I'd want to understand your lunchtime demographic before making changes, but there's an opportunity to build a more cohesive brand")
• Demonstrates understanding of menu engineering and commercial creativity ("I redesigned the tasting menu to use more secondary cuts and seasonal vegetables as the heroes, which dropped the food cost from 34% to 28% whilst actually improving guest feedback scores. The trick is making guests feel they're getting something special, not something cheap")
• Shows genuine passion for food that translates into business outcomes ("I spend every Monday morning at the market before it opens. Those relationships mean I get first pick of ingredients and prices that competitors don't see. Last year those supplier relationships saved us approximately 12% on proteins alone")
• Discusses trend awareness without being a slave to trends ("I follow what's happening globally but I'm not interested in chasing trends for their own sake. Fermentation made sense for us because it reduced waste and created unique flavour profiles. The foam era didn't fit our brand and I said no despite pressure from ownership")
• Considers guest experience holistically, not just the plate ("The best dish in the world fails if it's served at the wrong temperature, on the wrong plate, or to a guest who was expecting something different. I work closely with front-of-house to ensure the story of each dish enhances the dining experience")

Red flags to watch for:

• Culinary philosophy is entirely theoretical with no examples of execution
• Focuses exclusively on fine dining techniques regardless of your operation type
• Cannot explain how their vision would adapt to your specific brand and market
• Dismissive of commercial considerations ("I don't worry about food cost - that's management's problem")
• Vision hasn't evolved - still cooking the same style they were cooking 15 years ago
• All creative examples come from a single previous role, suggesting borrowed vision
• Cannot discuss failures or dishes that didn't work and what they learned
• Mentions no interest in what your current team is producing or capable of
• Vision is entirely about personal ambition (TV, books, awards) rather than building something at your operation

Customisation tips:

• For fine dining, explore their understanding of the balance between creativity and consistency
• For casual dining groups, test their ability to create compelling food within tighter cost parameters
• For hotel operations, ask how they'd maintain culinary identity across restaurant, banqueting, and room service
• For seasonal operations, discuss how they'd adapt menus to tourist vs local trade patterns
• For new openings, have them talk through how they'd develop the launch menu from concept to execution

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Compelling, original vision that aligns with your brand, backed by specific examples of successful execution, demonstrates creative-commercial balance with measurable results
• 4 - Good: Strong culinary direction with clear philosophy and relevant examples, understands the need to align vision with brand and market
• 3 - Average: Basic menu planning ability with some creative ideas but limited evidence of strategic culinary thinking or commercial awareness
• 2 - Below Average: Limited creative vision, relies heavily on previous menus or current trends, cannot articulate a coherent culinary philosophy
• 1 - Poor: No clear culinary direction, unable to connect food to business outcomes, dismissive of the need for strategic culinary thinking

Financial Management

Why this question matters:

Executive chefs who don't understand kitchen finances are the single biggest threat to restaurant profitability. Food cost, labour cost, and waste management sit directly under the executive chef's control, and together they typically represent 55-65% of revenue. A chef who lets food cost drift 3% above target on a restaurant turning over one million pounds annually has just cost you thirty thousand pounds. Multiply that across a group and the numbers become existential.

Financial management at this level isn't about counting potatoes. It's about understanding GP targets, engineering menus for profitability, managing labour deployment against covers, negotiating supplier contracts, reducing waste systematically, and making investment decisions about equipment and training that deliver returns. You need a chef who sees the P&L as a tool for making better decisions, not a constraint imposed by people who don't understand food.

What good answers look like:

• Discusses specific financial metrics they track and targets they've achieved ("I maintained a 28% food cost across a 15-cover tasting menu and a 120-cover brasserie simultaneously. The tasting menu ran at 32% but the brasserie offset it at 26%, and the overall GP hit our 72% target every quarter")
• Explains their approach to menu engineering with concrete examples ("Every dish on my menu has a costed recipe card. When I design a new menu, I model the expected mix against GP targets before anything goes on the pass. If a creative dish costs 38%, I balance it with a high-margin dish that I know will sell")
• Describes how they manage labour cost alongside food cost ("I restructured prep schedules to consolidate morning prep across outlets, which saved 40 labour hours per week without affecting service quality. That single change was worth roughly 50 thousand pounds annually")
• Shows understanding of the relationship between investment and returns ("I proposed a 25 thousand pound investment in a blast chiller and vacuum-pack system. The business case showed payback in 8 months through reduced waste and the ability to prep further ahead, improving consistency during service")
• Gives examples of identifying and fixing financial problems ("When I took over, food cost was running at 36% against a 30% target. Within three months I'd identified the issues - no recipe costing, inconsistent portioning, unmanaged waste, and two suppliers charging above market rate. I addressed each systematically and hit 30.5% by month four")
• Discusses how they communicate financial performance to non-kitchen stakeholders ("I present a monthly kitchen P&L review to ownership with variance analysis and action plans. I've found that being transparent about challenges builds trust and gives me more autonomy to manage my department")

Red flags to watch for:

• Cannot state the food cost percentage of their current or most recent operation
• Treats financial management as someone else's responsibility ("The GM handles the numbers")
• Describes cost control exclusively through cutting - cheaper ingredients, smaller portions, fewer staff
• No experience with formal P&L management, budgeting, or financial reporting
• Claims unrealistically low food costs without being able to explain the methodology
• Blames external factors for every financial miss (suppliers, utility costs, covers) without describing their own response
• No understanding of the relationship between food cost, labour cost, and GP
• Describes financial management in vague terms without any specific figures or examples
• Becomes defensive or evasive when pressed on financial details

Customisation tips:

• For fine dining, discuss how they balance premium ingredient costs against pricing strategies
• For group operations, explore how they manage financial performance across different concepts with different targets
• For hotel F&B, ask about their experience with banqueting costing, room service economics, and departmental P&L
• For operations looking to improve profitability, present your current numbers and ask how they'd approach improvement
• For seasonal businesses, discuss cash flow management and staffing decisions during quieter periods

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Strong P&L track record with specific cost-control examples, demonstrates sophisticated understanding of kitchen economics, can discuss margin improvement strategies with concrete figures
• 4 - Good: Good understanding of kitchen finances with relevant experience managing food and labour costs against targets
• 3 - Average: Basic financial awareness, understands food cost concept but limited experience with P&L responsibility or strategic financial management
• 2 - Below Average: Limited P&L experience, struggles to discuss specific financial metrics or gives only vague answers about cost management
• 1 - Poor: No financial management experience, sees kitchen finances as someone else's responsibility, cannot discuss basic cost-control principles

Quality Standards

Why this question matters:

Consistency is what separates great restaurants from good ones. A dish that's brilliant on Tuesday and average on Thursday destroys guest trust. Executive chefs who rely on personal talent rather than systems to maintain quality will always hit a ceiling - they can only be on the pass for so many services. The real test of an executive chef is whether standards hold when they're not in the building.

Quality systems at executive level extend beyond the food itself. They encompass food safety compliance, allergen management, presentation standards, service timing, and the daily routines that prevent problems before they reach guests. An executive chef who maintains personal standards but hasn't built systems that the team can follow independently has created a single point of failure in the operation.

What good answers look like:

• Describes specific quality systems they've implemented ("Every dish has a photo spec card showing exact presentation, portion, and garnish. New dishes don't go live until every CDP can execute them to spec without reference to the card. I test this by having them cook the dish three consecutive times before it appears on the menu")
• Explains how they maintain consistency across services and staff ("I do a quality walk-through at least twice per service, tasting from every section. My sous chefs know to pull any dish that doesn't meet spec rather than letting it leave the pass. We track rejection rates weekly - if a section's rejection rate increases, that tells me there's a training need")
• Shows understanding of food safety beyond basic compliance ("EHO visits don't worry me because we maintain the same standards every day, not just when we know they're coming. My approach is to build food safety into daily routines - temperature checks, cleaning schedules, allergen protocols - so they're automatic rather than tasks people forget")
• Discusses how they handle quality problems when they arise ("Last year, two guests reported the same dish tasted different on consecutive visits. I investigated and found one CDP was using a different stock base for the sauce. I realised our recipe card specified the stock but not the specific recipe for making it. We rebuilt all recipe cards to remove any ambiguity")
• Provides examples of maintaining standards under pressure ("During a full restaurant on a Saturday with two chefs down, the temptation is to let standards slip to get food out. I'd rather slow down the pass and communicate honestly with front-of-house about timing than serve food I'm not proud of. Guests remember bad food longer than they remember a 10-minute wait")
• References external benchmarks and continuous improvement ("I benchmark our standards against competitors quarterly - eating at similar operations, reviewing feedback platforms, and discussing best practice with my peer network. Standing still in quality means falling behind")

Red flags to watch for:

• Quality control is entirely dependent on their personal presence on the pass
• Cannot describe any specific systems, checklists, or quality protocols they've implemented
• Dismissive of food safety compliance ("It's all just paperwork")
• Blames quality failures on individual staff rather than systemic issues
• No examples of maintaining standards when understaffed or under pressure
• Quality standards haven't evolved - still using the same approach from 10 years ago
• Cannot discuss allergen management confidently or thoroughly
• Believes quality and speed are always in conflict rather than looking for systems that deliver both
• No mention of guest feedback as an input to quality improvement

Customisation tips:

• For fine dining, discuss their approach to tasting menu consistency across a 3-hour dining experience
• For high-volume operations, focus on how they maintain quality at pace with less experienced staff
• For hotel operations, explore how they manage quality across restaurant, banqueting, room service, and staff dining
• For group operations, ask how they ensure consistency across multiple sites with different teams
• For operations with food safety concerns, present a specific scenario and assess their response

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Exceptional standards with systematic approach, can demonstrate quality systems that work independently of their personal presence, combines food safety rigour with culinary excellence
• 4 - Good: High standards maintained consistently with clear systems and team accountability, good food safety understanding
• 3 - Average: Adequate quality control but reliant on personal oversight rather than embedded systems, basic food safety compliance
• 2 - Below Average: Inconsistent standards with limited evidence of quality systems or food safety leadership
• 1 - Poor: No quality systems, reactive rather than proactive approach to standards, weak food safety understanding

Supplier Relationships

Why this question matters:

Supplier relationships directly affect ingredient quality, food cost, and your kitchen's ability to deliver the menu consistently. An executive chef with strong supplier networks gets first access to the best produce, preferential pricing, reliable delivery, and flexibility when things go wrong. A chef who treats suppliers as interchangeable commodity providers ends up with inconsistent quality, higher prices, and no goodwill to draw on when they need an emergency delivery or a credit note.

At executive level, supplier management extends beyond ordering and receiving. It includes contract negotiation, market analysis, sustainability sourcing, building relationships with producers, and managing the tension between quality aspirations and commercial constraints. The best executive chefs understand that supplier relationships are strategic partnerships, not transactional arrangements.

What good answers look like:

• Describes established supplier relationships with specific examples ("I've worked with my fish supplier for 12 years across three restaurants. He knows my standards - if something isn't right, he calls me before delivery rather than sending it and hoping I don't notice. That trust took years to build and it's worth more than any contract")
• Explains their approach to negotiation and cost management ("I review supplier pricing quarterly against market benchmarks. Rather than constantly pushing for the cheapest price, I negotiate annual volume agreements that give me price stability and my suppliers revenue certainty. Last year that approach saved 8% on proteins compared to spot-buying")
• Shows understanding of sustainability and provenance ("I've moved 60% of our produce to within a 50-mile radius over three years. It started as a sustainability initiative but the commercial benefits were unexpected - fresher produce means less waste, the menu story resonates with guests, and local suppliers are more responsive than national distributors")
• Discusses how they handle supply problems ("During the supply chain disruptions, I immediately contacted all key suppliers to understand their exposure. I reformulated three menu items to use alternative proteins before we ran out of the originals, and I increased our dry-goods buffer stock. We didn't miss a single dish while competitors were 86-ing regularly")
• Demonstrates a systematic approach to procurement ("Every delivery is checked against spec by a trained senior CDP, not just a porter ticking boxes. We photograph any quality issues and send them to the supplier within the hour. We also track delivery accuracy and quality scores monthly - suppliers who consistently underperform are replaced, and they know it")
• References developing new supplier relationships ("When I wanted to source heritage breed pork for the new menu, I visited six farms before finding one that met our standards. I agreed to take the whole animal - not just the prime cuts - which gave the farmer better economics and gave us the opportunity to use offal and secondary cuts creatively")

Red flags to watch for:

• No established supplier relationships - changes suppliers constantly based purely on price
• Cannot discuss specific ingredient sourcing beyond "we order from X supplier"
• No understanding of supplier economics or the value of long-term partnerships
• Treats suppliers poorly - late payments, last-minute cancellations, unreasonable demands
• No system for checking delivery quality beyond a cursory glance
• Entirely reactive to supply problems rather than anticipating and planning
• Cannot discuss food traceability, allergen verification, or supplier audit processes
• Over-reliant on a single supplier for critical ingredients with no contingency
• No interest in provenance, sustainability, or the story behind ingredients

Customisation tips:

• For fine dining, explore their relationships with specialist and artisan producers
• For group operations, discuss their approach to centralised vs decentralised purchasing
• For hotel operations, ask about managing supplier relationships alongside a central procurement function
• For operations focused on sustainability, probe the depth of their supply chain knowledge
• For new openings, ask how they'd establish a supplier network from scratch in your area

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Strong supplier network with proven negotiation skills, established long-term relationships, systematic procurement management, and clear commercial impact
• 4 - Good: Good supplier management with evidence of effective relationships, reasonable negotiation experience, and quality-focused procurement
• 3 - Average: Basic procurement understanding, some supplier relationships but limited strategic approach to sourcing or negotiation
• 2 - Below Average: Limited supplier experience, transactional approach to procurement, no established network
• 1 - Poor: No procurement experience, no understanding of supplier relationship management, unable to discuss sourcing strategies

Practical Trial

Why practical trials matter:

At executive level, the practical trial isn't about watching someone cook. You already know they can cook - their CV and reputation confirm that. The trial reveals how they assess your operation, interact with your existing team, identify opportunities and problems, and communicate their thinking. It shows you their executive instincts: do they dive straight into cooking, or do they observe first? Do they ask questions or make assumptions? Do they engage with your team respectfully or immediately try to assert authority?

A kitchen walkthrough and menu discussion with your current team tells you more about a candidate's executive capability in 45 minutes than three hours of interview conversation.

What to observe:

Demonstrated kitchen leadership presence - Watch how they carry themselves in the kitchen environment. Do they command natural respect without demanding it? Do your team members respond to their presence positively? An executive chef who intimidates a brigade on first meeting will do the same every day. Look for confident but approachable authority.

Showed eye for detail and standards - As they walk through your kitchen, what do they notice? A strong executive chef will spot temperature issues, cleanliness gaps, storage problems, and equipment concerns without being prompted. They won't necessarily criticise - the best candidates make mental notes and discuss them diplomatically later.

Engaged professionally with kitchen team - How do they interact with your existing chefs? Do they ask questions about what people are working on? Do they show genuine interest in your team's capabilities? An executive chef who ignores the brigade and focuses only on the physical kitchen is telling you about their leadership style.

Identified operational improvements - After the walkthrough, can they articulate specific observations about your operation? This isn't about criticising - it's about demonstrating the analytical eye that makes a good executive chef. Strong candidates will frame observations constructively: "I noticed your prep area is quite tight - have you considered reorganising the workflow to create a dedicated mise en place station?"

Communicated culinary knowledge clearly - During the menu discussion, listen to how they explain their ideas. Can they articulate why a dish works, not just what's on the plate? Do they connect culinary decisions to business outcomes? Can they explain complex techniques in language that different team members can understand?

Setting up an effective trial:

• Brief your existing head chef or sous chef to interact naturally - their feedback is invaluable
• Have your current menu available for discussion, along with recent guest feedback
• Allow the candidate to walk through the entire kitchen operation, not just the main kitchen
• Schedule during prep time so they can observe real work in progress
• Give them space to observe before asking for their thoughts - strong candidates will ask for this themselves

How to score the trial:

• 5 - Exceptional: Natural executive presence combined with genuine culinary expertise; identified meaningful operational insights; engaged brilliantly with existing team; communicated with authority and respect
• 4 - Strong: Good leadership presence and culinary insight; made relevant observations about the operation; interacted well with team members; showed strong potential at this level
• 3 - Adequate: Shows potential at executive level but limited in some areas; some relevant observations but missed obvious opportunities; team interaction was competent but unremarkable
• 2 - Below Standard: Not ready for executive role; missed significant operational issues; team interaction was poor or inappropriate; limited evidence of executive-level thinking
• 1 - Inadequate: Not suited for this position; demonstrated no executive presence or insight; unable to engage meaningfully with the operation or team

Cultural Fit Assessment

Beyond skills and experience, cultural fit determines whether an executive chef will thrive in your organisation and stay long enough to make a genuine impact. Select all indicators that genuinely apply based on your observations throughout the interview and trial.

Shows passion for culinary excellence - Did their eyes light up when discussing food? Do they talk about cooking with genuine enthusiasm, or is it purely a business conversation? Passion at this level doesn't mean theatrical displays - it means a deep, sustained commitment to the craft that drives standards even when no one is watching.

Demonstrates commercial awareness - Do they understand that great food must also be good business? Did they ask about your financial performance, target margins, or growth plans? An executive chef who doesn't ask about the numbers is either not interested in them or afraid of them - neither is good.

Leads by example - During the trial, did they demonstrate rather than just direct? Did they show respect for every role in the kitchen, from the porter upwards? An executive chef who leads by example builds a culture where standards are aspirational rather than imposed.

Shows team development focus - Did they ask about your current team's capabilities and development needs? Do they see building the next generation of chefs as part of their role, or just an inconvenience that takes them away from the pass? The best executive chefs measure their success partly through the careers they've helped build.

Interest in industry innovation - Are they current with industry trends, techniques, and sustainability practices? Do they attend industry events, maintain professional networks, and continue their own development? Stagnant executive chefs produce stagnant kitchens.

Positive about business partnership - Do they see the relationship with ownership and management as a partnership or an adversarial negotiation? An executive chef who positions themselves as "the creative" fighting against "the suits" will create conflict rather than collaboration.

Weighted Scoring

The weighted scoring system reflects what matters most for executive chef success.

Leadership carries 30% because an executive chef who cannot build, develop, and retain a strong brigade will fail regardless of their culinary talent. Rate 1-5 based on interview responses and trial observations of team interaction, then multiply by 0.30.

Culinary excellence also carries 30% because the executive chef sets the culinary direction and quality standards for the entire operation. Rate 1-5 based on culinary vision responses, portfolio quality, and trial observations of culinary knowledge, then multiply by 0.30.

Commercial acumen carries 25% because executive chefs own a substantial portion of the P&L and must balance creative ambition with financial responsibility. Rate 1-5 based on financial management responses and evidence of commercial thinking throughout the interview, then multiply by 0.25.

Cultural fit carries 15% because executive chefs shape kitchen culture and must integrate with the broader management team. Rate 1-5 based on cultural fit indicators and overall impression of alignment with your organisation's values and working style, then multiply by 0.15.

Add all weighted scores together for the final result. Maximum possible is 5.0.

Interpretation:

• 4.0 and above: Strong hire - offer position with confidence. Move quickly - executive chefs at this calibre have options
• 3.5 to 3.9: Hire with development plan - strong candidate who may need support in specific areas. Identify the gaps and plan accordingly
• 3.0 to 3.4: Consider second interview - potential but significant questions remain. May benefit from a second meeting focused on the weaker areas
• Below 3.0: Do not proceed - fundamental concerns that experience and training cannot address at this level

Customisation tips:

• For operations where culinary reputation is the primary differentiator, increase Culinary Excellence to 0.35 and reduce Cultural Fit to 0.10
• For group operations where consistency matters more than creativity, increase Leadership to 0.35 and reduce Culinary Excellence to 0.25
• For financially challenged operations, increase Commercial Acumen to 0.30 and reduce Culinary Excellence to 0.25
• For operations with strong existing teams, increase Cultural Fit to 0.20 and reduce Leadership to 0.25

Final Recommendation

Based on all assessments, select your hiring decision:

• Strong Hire - Offer position immediately: Exceptional candidate across all assessment areas. Move fast - executive chefs at this calibre are approached by competitors constantly. Prepare a compelling offer that addresses compensation, creative autonomy, and development opportunities
• Hire - Good candidate, offer position: Strong candidate who meets your requirements. Some areas may benefit from support during onboarding, but overall capability is clear. Prepare a structured onboarding plan that addresses any identified development areas
• Maybe - Conduct second interview or check references: Potential is evident but significant questions remain. Common reasons: conflicting signals between interview and trial, unclear financial management capability, or questions about leadership style. Plan a focused second meeting that targets specific concerns
• Probably Not - Significant concerns, unlikely to hire: Issues emerged that are difficult to resolve through onboarding or support. Only reconsider if no other candidates are viable and you can clearly mitigate the identified risks
• Do Not Hire - Not suitable for this role: Clear misfit in capability, cultural alignment, or professional standards. Do not proceed regardless of hiring pressure or timeline constraints. A bad executive chef hire costs far more than an extended vacancy

Additional Notes

Record any observations, concerns, or follow-up actions that don't fit elsewhere. At executive level, this might include:

• Specific reference check questions (verify financial claims, leadership approach, reasons for leaving)
• Compensation expectations and negotiation considerations
• Notice period and start date constraints
• Portfolio items to verify or explore further
• Concerns about motivations for moving (running towards your opportunity or away from a problem?)
• Spouse or family relocation considerations if applicable
• Non-compete or restrictive covenant issues from current employer
• Ideas for structuring the onboarding period based on identified strengths and development areas

What's next

Once you've selected your executive chef, structured onboarding is critical for retention and rapid impact. See our guide on Executive Chef onboarding to ensure your new hire builds relationships, understands your operation, and starts delivering culinary leadership from day one.