How to Use the Restaurant Assistant Manager Interview Template

Why structured assistant manager interviews matter

The restaurant assistant manager role is deceptively complex. It sits between the supervisory team and the general manager, requiring someone who can lead shifts independently while also supporting the GM's broader agenda. A poor assistant manager creates a leadership vacuum - the supervisors don't feel supported, the GM can't delegate, and the operation runs on hope rather than management.

This template assesses candidates across the five competencies that define assistant manager effectiveness: relevant restaurant experience, ability to supervise and develop a team, guest service instinct, operational ownership, and independent decision-making. The 45-minute format provides enough depth to separate candidates who talk a good game from those who genuinely operate at this level.

Assistant manager candidates often present well because they've learned the language of management. The structured approach forces them past rehearsed answers into specific examples with real outcomes - where the truth lives.

Pre-Interview Preparation

Before the candidate arrives, work through this checklist to set yourself up for a thorough assessment.

Review candidate CV and restaurant experience - Look for progression through restaurant roles and evidence of increasing responsibility. Note the types and sizes of restaurants they've worked in. An assistant manager from a 40-cover bistro faces different challenges than one from a 200-cover casual dining site.

Prepare interview area - Choose a professional, quiet space. This is a management-level interview and should feel like one. The environment signals whether you take the role seriously.

Have scoring sheets and pen ready - Five questions plus a practical trial generates a lot of information. Document responses in real time rather than relying on memory after the interview.

Ensure 45 minutes uninterrupted time - Brief your team that you're unavailable. Interruptions during a management interview signal to the candidate that management roles in your restaurant aren't respected.

Review restaurant operations and team structure - Understand what you need from this role specifically. What does the GM need to delegate? Where are the operational gaps? What's the team dynamic? This context shapes which areas to probe most deeply.

Customisation tips:

• For restaurants where the AM essentially runs the operation when the GM is off, add "Define the specific responsibilities and authority level"
• For group operations, add "Review brand standards and reporting requirements"
• For new restaurants still establishing themselves, add "Consider what the AM needs to build versus maintain"
• For restaurants with kitchen-floor tension, add "Note the current kitchen-floor relationship and what the AM needs to manage"

Candidate Details

Record the candidate's full name exactly as they prefer to be called. This becomes your reference for all subsequent documentation.

Document when the interview took place. This is essential when comparing multiple candidates interviewed over several days and for any follow-up correspondence.

Restaurant Experience

Why this question matters:

An assistant manager needs enough operational experience to be credible with the team and useful to the GM. Someone who's only waited tables for two years won't have the breadth of understanding needed to support across the whole operation. You need evidence that they've worked in environments complex enough to develop genuine management capability, and that their experience is relevant to your operation's style and scale.

What good answers look like:

• Shows clear progression with increasing responsibility ("I started as a waiter, moved to head waiter within a year, then took on supervisor responsibilities including rota management, stocktaking, and training new starters. For the last eighteen months I've been senior supervisor with responsibility for the floor team of eight")
• Quantifies their experience concretely ("The restaurant seated 120 covers, turned tables twice on busy nights, and I managed shifts with up to ten FOH staff")
• Demonstrates breadth beyond their immediate role ("Beyond running the floor, I got involved in supplier meetings with the GM, helped plan the seasonal menu launch, and managed our social media response to guest reviews")
• Shows understanding of how all parts of the restaurant connect ("I've learned that great front-of-house only works if you understand what's happening in the kitchen, the bar, and the reservation system. I've made a point of spending time in each area to understand the pressures they face")
• Relevant experience for your type of operation ("I've worked in both casual and fine dining, and I understand the different pace, standards, and guest expectations. My strongest experience is in high-volume casual dining with a strong bar programme")

Red flags to watch for:

• Job title inflation - describes themselves as "practically the assistant manager already" without evidence of the actual responsibilities
• Short stints across many restaurants with no clear progression - suggests they've not stayed long enough to develop depth
• Experience only in very different operation types (e.g., fast food applying for fine dining AM) with no bridge experience
• Cannot quantify their responsibilities - vague about team sizes, covers, or operational scope
• Only talks about what they've done, not what they've learned or how they've grown
• Takes credit for outcomes that were clearly team or management achievements

Customisation tips:

• For internal candidates, focus less on breadth and more on what they've done beyond their current role expectations
• For candidates from larger restaurant groups, explore whether their experience is genuine or they were sheltered by strong systems
• For candidates from independent restaurants, assess whether they can adapt to a more structured environment (or vice versa)
• For candidates changing restaurant styles, explore their understanding of the differences and how they'd adapt

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Strong restaurant supervisory experience with clear progression, breadth across operational areas, and specific examples demonstrating readiness for assistant management
• 4 - Good: Solid shift leadership experience with good examples of taking on additional responsibility; may lack the operational breadth of the top tier
• 3 - Average: Some supervisory exposure with a decent understanding of restaurant operations; limited evidence of operating beyond a standard supervisor scope
• 2 - Below Average: Limited management experience; mostly describes front-line work with occasional supervisory duties
• 1 - Poor: No supervisory experience; unclear about what assistant management involves

Team Supervision

Why this question matters:

The assistant manager is the day-to-day leader for the floor team. They're the person who motivates the team during a gruelling double shift, coaches the waiter whose upselling has dropped, and addresses the supervisor who's been taking longer breaks when the GM's not around. If they can't supervise effectively, the team's performance will depend entirely on who else is on shift - and that's not management.

What good answers look like:

• Describes motivating through specific techniques, not just personality ("During a particularly tough December, I introduced a 'December champions' board in the staff room. Each shift, I'd publicly recognise one team member for something specific - best upsell, best guest recovery, most supportive colleague. By the second week, the team were actively trying to make the board")
• Shows they handle difficult supervisory situations directly ("A supervisor on my team started arriving late consistently - always five or ten minutes, always with an excuse. I had a private conversation, explained the impact on the team and the standard I expected, and agreed a plan. When it happened twice more, I escalated it formally with the GM. The supervisor's timekeeping improved permanently")
• Demonstrates different approaches for different people ("I have a waiter who responds brilliantly to direct feedback - 'Your table 6 greeting wasn't warm enough, try this instead.' I have another who shuts down if you're too direct. With them, I ask questions - 'How do you think that table interaction went? What might you try differently?' Same result, different approach")
• Gives examples of building capability, not just directing ("I partnered our weakest waiter with our strongest for buddy shifts. I gave the stronger waiter coaching on how to coach, which developed both of them. Within a month, the weaker waiter was consistently meeting standard and the stronger one was ready for supervisor responsibilities")
• Mentions using structure and consistency ("Every shift I work, I do a two-minute check-in with each team member at the start. It takes ten minutes total but it means I know who's having a good day, who's struggling, and whether anyone needs extra support")

Red flags to watch for:

• Describes supervision as giving instructions and checking they're followed - no mention of motivation, development, or coaching
• "I treat everyone the same" - this sounds fair but means they don't adapt their approach to individual needs
• Cannot give a specific example of handling an underperforming team member
• Relies on the GM to handle all difficult conversations - an AM needs to have these conversations themselves
• Describes a team that performs well but with no evidence of their personal contribution to that performance
• Only mentions supervision during service, not pre-shift preparation, training, or post-shift reviews

Customisation tips:

• For restaurants with young or inexperienced teams, explore their experience mentoring first-job employees
• For restaurants with experienced, long-serving staff, ask how they'd supervise people who may resist change
• For high-turnover environments, discuss how they maintain team performance when the team composition keeps changing
• For restaurants with strong union presence or employment contracts, explore their understanding of formal supervision processes

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Strong supervisor with team development focus; gives specific examples of motivating, coaching, and addressing performance issues with clear positive outcomes
• 4 - Good: Good at motivating teams with clear examples of proactive supervision; may still be developing their approach to the most complex situations
• 3 - Average: Adequate supervisory skills with some relevant examples; understands the principles but limited depth in practice
• 2 - Below Average: Limited leadership ability; describes supervision mainly as task allocation with few examples of genuine people management
• 1 - Poor: Cannot supervise effectively; no evidence of motivating, coaching, or holding team members accountable

Guest Service

Why this question matters:

The assistant manager is often the most senior person on the floor during service, making them the face of the restaurant for guests. They handle the complaints that waiters can't resolve, the VIP tables that need extra attention, and the situations that could generate a bad review or a loyal regular. A guest's interaction with the AM often determines whether they return. Getting this right directly affects revenue.

What good answers look like:

• Describes a proactive approach, not just reactive complaint handling ("I make a point of visiting every table at least once during their meal - not to check up, but to read the room. I can usually spot a problem before the guest raises it. A couple looking at their watches means their food is taking too long. I'm at the pass checking before they need to ask")
• Gives a specific complaint resolution with measurable outcome ("A regular guest received an incorrectly prepared dish for the second visit running. Instead of the standard apology and comp, I spoke to the head chef directly, identified the issue, comped the guest's entire meal, and personally called them the next day to confirm the problem was fixed. They're still a regular and they always request to say hello when they visit")
• Shows commercial awareness in guest recovery ("I always consider the lifetime value of a guest. Comping a £15 dessert to keep a couple who spend £150 every month is an obvious decision. But I'm also aware when a complaint doesn't warrant a major recovery - I can be empathetic without giving the restaurant away")
• Demonstrates authority in difficult situations ("A guest was being rude to our newest waiter to the point of making them visibly upset. I stepped in, took over the table personally, and managed the guest professionally. After they left, I spent time with the waiter to debrief and make sure they were okay. Both the guest and the waiter had a better experience because I acted")
• Shows they train the team on guest service, not just deliver it themselves ("I run monthly 'guest experience' workshops covering common scenarios. Last month we practised handling allergen queries. This month it's reading body language to identify dissatisfied guests before they complain")

Red flags to watch for:

• Guest service is purely reactive - only describes handling complaints, not creating positive experiences
• Gives away excessive comps without assessing the situation - this burns through goodwill budget on people who don't warrant it
• Cannot describe what great guest service looks like beyond "being friendly and attentive"
• Avoids direct guest interaction during problems ("I'd send the supervisor over")
• No awareness of the commercial aspect of guest service - treating every complaint identically regardless of guest value or complaint validity
• Describes guest service as the waiter's job, not a management responsibility

Customisation tips:

• For fine dining, explore their experience with high-value guest management, sommelier coordination, and detailed service sequences
• For casual dining, focus on speed of service, consistency, and handling high-volume guest flow
• For restaurants with a strong regular guest base, ask about relationship building and personalisation
• For restaurants with dietary and allergen complexity, probe their approach to managing allergen-related guest experiences

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Exceptional guest recovery skills with proactive service instinct; gives specific examples of turning problems into loyalty, training the team, and balancing commercial awareness with empathy
• 4 - Good: Strong guest service orientation with good examples of complaint handling and proactive guest engagement; may lack the strategic view of the top tier
• 3 - Average: Adequate guest handling with some relevant examples; understands the importance but limited evidence of proactive or particularly skilled guest management
• 2 - Below Average: Limited guest focus; describes guest service as others' responsibility or only handles routine situations
• 1 - Poor: Cannot handle guest issues; avoids guest interaction, mishandles complaints, or shows no guest service instinct

Operational Support

Why this question matters:

The "assistant" in assistant manager means supporting the GM with the operational workload of running the restaurant. This goes beyond managing shifts - it includes stock management, rota planning, supplier relationships, maintenance coordination, and compliance tasks. A GM who can't delegate these tasks to their AM is doing two jobs, which means neither gets done properly.

What good answers look like:

• Describes specific operational areas they own ("I manage the weekly stock order for all dry goods and bar supplies, reconcile the beer and spirits stock against sales, and flag variances to the GM. I also handle the cleaning schedule, maintenance requests, and our monthly compliance audit")
• Shows initiative in identifying and solving operational problems ("I noticed our food waste was higher than the GM realised. I set up a waste log, tracked it for a month, and identified that our prep quantities for specials were consistently too high. We adjusted the prep sheets and saved about £200 a week")
• Demonstrates understanding of how operational tasks connect to the business ("Managing the rota isn't just about filling shifts. I look at the booking diary, match staffing levels to expected covers, consider who works well together, and balance development opportunities - giving newer staff exposure to busy shifts with experienced colleagues")
• Mentions systems they've created or improved ("I built a daily manager checklist that covers everything from temperature checks to till reconciliation. Before I introduced it, these tasks were hit-and-miss depending on who was on duty")
• Shows willingness to handle the unglamorous tasks ("Operational support means doing whatever needs doing. Some weeks that's analysing GP reports with the GM. Other weeks it's arranging emergency plumber callouts or covering a dish-pit shift because we're short-staffed")

Red flags to watch for:

• Describes operational support purely as "helping the GM" without specifying what they actually take ownership of
• No experience with any back-of-house operational tasks (ordering, stock, compliance, maintenance)
• Cannot describe a system they've improved or a problem they've solved operationally
• Sees operational tasks as beneath their role ("I'm more of a people person") - an AM who won't get operational isn't an AM
• No understanding of how operational decisions affect financials or guest experience
• Relies entirely on systems and processes created by others without contributing improvements

Customisation tips:

• For restaurants where the AM handles significant financial tasks, probe their experience with budgets, GP analysis, and cost control
• For restaurants with complex compliance requirements, explore their knowledge of food safety, licensing, and health and safety
• For restaurants using specific tech platforms, assess their technical confidence and willingness to learn new systems
• For restaurants where the AM covers for the GM regularly, treat operational support as a more weighted area

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Proactive in supporting all operations; owns specific operational areas, has improved systems, and understands how operational tasks connect to business outcomes
• 4 - Good: Takes ownership of key operational areas with clear examples; reliable and effective, though may not yet demonstrate the initiative of the top tier
• 3 - Average: Adequate operational support; handles assigned tasks but limited evidence of taking ownership or identifying improvements independently
• 2 - Below Average: Reactive approach only; does what's asked but doesn't take initiative or show interest in operational management
• 1 - Poor: Limited operational awareness; cannot describe operational tasks they've handled or shows disinterest in this aspect of the role

Decision Making

Why this question matters:

When the GM isn't available, the assistant manager is the decision-maker. A staffing crisis at 6pm on a Friday can't wait until Monday morning. A guest threatening legal action needs an immediate, measured response. A delivery arriving with the wrong order needs a solution before service. An AM who can't make these calls independently - or who makes them badly - undermines the entire management structure.

What good answers look like:

• Describes a decision made under genuine pressure ("Our head waiter called in sick an hour before a fully booked Saturday service. The GM was unreachable. I called our most experienced waiter, offered them overtime to come in, restructured the floor plan to work with fewer covers in the interim, and briefed the team on adjusted responsibilities. By the time the cover arrived, we'd already handled the first sitting smoothly")
• Shows they assess before acting ("When I have to make a quick decision, I consider: What's the worst outcome if I don't act? What's the worst outcome if I act? And is this something the GM would expect me to handle or escalate? That framework keeps me from either overthinking or being reckless")
• Demonstrates appropriate boundaries ("I know when a decision is mine to make and when it needs the GM. Staffing a shift, comping a table, adjusting the floor plan - those are mine. Changing a supplier, adjusting a menu item, or handling a formal complaint from a staff member - those need the GM's input. I'd rather make ten good decisions a day and escalate two than try to handle everything and get one wrong")
• Shows accountability for their decisions ("I once reduced covers too aggressively when we were short-staffed, and we turned away guests we could have served. I owned that to the GM, explained my thinking, and agreed a more nuanced approach for next time - reducing cover times slightly rather than cutting covers entirely")
• Gives examples of both routine and high-stakes decisions ("Day to day, I make dozens of small decisions - adjusting sections, reassigning tasks, handling guest requests. The bigger ones are less frequent but matter more - sending an underperforming staff member home, deciding whether to accept a large walk-in group during a busy service, or authorising an expensive guest recovery")

Red flags to watch for:

• Default answer to every scenario is "I'd call the GM" - this person isn't ready for independent decision-making
• Makes decisions impulsively without considering consequences ("I just went with my gut")
• Cannot describe a single decision they've made without management approval
• Overconfident about decisions beyond their authority level - an AM who thinks they should make every call is as problematic as one who makes none
• No accountability for decisions that went wrong - either denies mistakes or blames circumstances
• Describes freezing or panicking when unexpected situations arise

Customisation tips:

• For restaurants where the AM regularly operates without the GM, probe for more examples of high-stakes independent decisions
• For group operations with area manager support, ask about the speed at which decisions need to be made versus the time to reach support
• For new AMs stepping up from supervisor, focus on their comfort with increased authority and how they'd approach decisions they haven't had to make before
• For restaurants with strict procedures, explore how they'd handle a situation the procedure doesn't cover

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Sound judgement with confident decisions; gives specific examples of both routine and high-stakes independent decision-making; demonstrates accountability and learning from outcomes
• 4 - Good: Makes good decisions under pressure with clear examples; may occasionally over-escalate but generally confident in their authority
• 3 - Average: Can resolve basic issues independently; shows some decision-making capability but tends to seek guidance for anything beyond routine situations
• 2 - Below Average: Hesitant to make decisions; tends to defer upward or delay action, which creates operational issues
• 1 - Poor: Cannot act independently; freezes under pressure, makes impulsive decisions without thought, or refuses to take ownership of any outcome

Practical Trial

Why practical trials matter:

Assistant manager candidates often have the vocabulary of management without the practice. The trial reveals whether they naturally operate at a management level - scanning the whole operation, directing the team, engaging with guests proactively, and making decisions without prompting. Many revert to supervisor or waiter mode under pressure, which tells you everything you need to know.

What to observe:

Demonstrated supervisory presence - Did they position themselves to oversee the whole operation rather than getting absorbed in one area? Watch for purposeful movement, environmental scanning, and the ability to maintain awareness of multiple things simultaneously.

Engaged professionally with team - Did they communicate clearly, respectfully, and with appropriate authority? Watch how they interact with different levels - were they comfortable directing both junior staff and experienced supervisors?

Showed guest-focused approach - Did they proactively engage with guests or wait to be needed? Watch for table visits, body language reading, and the instinct to intervene before problems escalate.

Made appropriate decisions - When situations arose, did they handle them independently? Watch for confident, measured responses rather than hesitation or immediately looking to you for guidance.

Maintained operational standards - Did they notice and address standards issues? Watch for awareness of table settings, service timing, cleanliness, and team presentation.

Setting up an effective trial:

• Schedule during a service that requires genuine management - not dead quiet, but not unmanageably busy
• Brief your team to treat them as the assistant manager for the duration
• Position yourself where you can observe without interfering
• Note specific decisions, interactions, and moments - not just general impressions
• If possible, include a pre-shift briefing in the trial to assess their communication skills

How to score the trial:

• 5 - Exceptional: Natural assistant manager capability; maintained operational overview, directed the team confidently, engaged proactively with guests, and made sound decisions throughout
• 4 - Strong: Good supervisory skills demonstrated; comfortable at the AM level with only occasional moments of reverting to supervisor or waiter mode
• 3 - Adequate: Shows potential with development; some good management instincts but inconsistent in maintaining the AM perspective across the whole trial
• 2 - Below Standard: Struggled with management tasks; operated more as a supervisor or waiter than an assistant manager
• 1 - Inadequate: Not suited for assistant manager role; couldn't operate at the required level

Cultural Fit Assessment

Beyond skills and experience, cultural fit determines whether an assistant manager will complement the GM and enhance the management team. Select all indicators that genuinely apply.

Shows passion for hospitality - Do they love the industry? An AM who sees this as just a job will do the minimum. One who's passionate about hospitality will drive standards, engage guests, and inspire the team.

Demonstrates leadership potential - Based on everything you've seen, could this person be a GM in two to three years? An AM with growth potential invests more in the role and delivers more.

Supports GM effectively - Did they demonstrate an understanding of the AM's supporting role? Watch for ego - an AM who wants to run the show rather than support the GM creates conflict.

Shows team development focus - Did they talk about building people, not just managing them? An AM who develops the team creates a more capable operation.

Interest in career progression - Do they see this role as a step toward general management? Ambitious AMs tend to invest more energy and deliver more results.

Positive about varied responsibilities - AM roles involve everything from guest service to cleaning schedules to stock counts. Candidates who only want the glamorous parts will be disappointed.

Weighted Scoring

The weighted scoring system reflects what matters most for assistant manager success. Leadership and guest service are equally weighted because an AM must deliver both strong team management and excellent guest experiences.

Leadership carries 30% because the AM is the day-to-day leader of the floor team. Rate 1-5 based on team supervision answers, decision-making capability, and trial observations. Multiply by 0.30.

Guest service also carries 30% because the AM is often the most senior person guests interact with. Rate 1-5 based on guest service answers, complaint handling examples, and trial observations. Multiply by 0.30.

Operations carries 25% because an AM who can't handle operational tasks can't genuinely support the GM. Rate 1-5 based on operational support answers and their understanding of how operations affect the business. Multiply by 0.25.

Cultural fit carries 15% because it determines how well the AM complements the GM and integrates with the management structure. Rate 1-5 based on the cultural fit indicators. 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
• 3.5 to 3.9: Hire with development plan - good candidate who may need support building management depth
• 3.0 to 3.4: Consider second interview - potential but significant questions remain about readiness for AM level
• Below 3.0: Do not proceed - significant concerns that training cannot address

Customisation tips:

• For restaurants where the AM has significant financial responsibility, increase Operations to 0.30 and reduce Guest Service to 0.25
• For guest-experience-driven operations, increase Guest Service to 0.35 and reduce Operations to 0.20
• For restaurants where the AM works closely with the GM, increase Cultural Fit to 0.20 and reduce one other area by 0.05
• For AM roles that primarily cover unsupervised shifts, increase Leadership to 0.35 and reduce Cultural Fit to 0.10

Final Recommendation

Based on all assessments, select your hiring decision:

• Strong Hire - Offer position immediately: Exceptional candidate who demonstrated genuine AM capability across all areas; move fast before they accept elsewhere
• Hire - Good candidate, offer position: Solid choice who would strengthen your management team and support the GM effectively
• Maybe - Conduct second interview or check references: Potential shown but questions remain - perhaps strong on guest service but light on operations, or vice versa
• Probably Not - Significant concerns, unlikely to hire: Issues identified that are unlikely to resolve through onboarding; only reconsider if no other candidates
• Do Not Hire - Not suitable for this role: Clear misfit for the assistant management role; don't proceed regardless of hiring pressure

Additional Notes

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

• Specific reference check questions about their management capability and how they work with a GM
• Training needs if hired (your POS system, operational procedures, financial reporting, supplier contacts)
• Salary expectations and notice period discussed
• Notable strengths the GM should leverage from day one
• Concerns to monitor during probation (operational ownership, decision-making confidence, GM relationship dynamic)

What's next

Once you've selected your restaurant assistant manager, proper onboarding is essential for establishing the GM-AM partnership. See our guide on Restaurant Assistant Manager onboarding to ensure your new hire integrates with the management team and starts adding value from week one.