How to Use the Restaurant Supervisor Interview Template

Why structured restaurant supervisor interviews matter

Restaurant supervisor is the first real leadership step on the floor. It's where your best waiter or host must stop thinking about their own tables and start thinking about the entire dining room. Many strong front-of-house staff never successfully make this transition because supervising requires a fundamentally different mindset - watching the whole picture, holding peers accountable, and making decisions that affect everyone's service.

This template focuses on the four competencies that predict restaurant supervisor success: their ability to transition from team member to leader, their commitment to maintaining standards under pressure, their approach to managing team performance, and their skill at recovering service when things go wrong. The 45-minute format allows thorough assessment without pulling you away from operations for too long.

Without structured interviews, supervisor hires often come down to "they're our best waiter, so they'll be a good supervisor." That logic fails more often than it succeeds. Your best individual performer may be your worst leader.

Pre-Interview Preparation

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

Review candidate's CV and application - Look for evidence of stepping up beyond their core role. Have they trained new starters? Covered for a supervisor? Taken ownership of a section during busy service? For external candidates, note the types of restaurants they've worked in and the size of teams.

Prepare interview room - Find a quiet space away from the restaurant floor. Supervisor candidates are often internal or from nearby establishments, so conducting the interview in a professional setting signals that this is a genuine step up, not just more of the same with a title change.

Have scoring sheets ready - With four interview questions plus a practical trial, you need to document accurately. Score each section as you go rather than trying to recall everything at the end.

Review current team and service standards - Know what your floor team needs from a supervisor right now. Are you struggling with consistency during busy services? Is team morale an issue? Understanding your specific challenges helps you probe the areas that matter most for your operation.

Ensure 45 minutes uninterrupted time - Brief your team that you're unavailable. For internal candidates especially, interruptions undermine the formality that makes this feel like a genuine career step.

Customisation tips:

• For fine dining, add "Review current service sequence and wine service standards"
• For casual dining chains, add "Note brand standards and SOPs the supervisor must enforce"
• For restaurants with high staff turnover, add "Consider specific team dynamic challenges to discuss"
• For venues promoting internally, add "Note current peer relationships and potential dynamics to explore"

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.

Leadership Transition

Why this question matters:

The shift from team member to supervisor is where most front-of-house careers either accelerate or stall. Someone who was everyone's favourite colleague last week now needs to give those same people direction, correct their mistakes, and hold them accountable for standards. Candidates who haven't thought about this dynamic - or who think leadership is just about telling people what to do - will struggle within weeks.

What good answers look like:

• Describes the specific moment or period when they first led others and what they learned ("When our supervisor called in sick on a Saturday night, I stepped up. The hardest part wasn't managing the floor - it was telling my friend and colleague that she needed to pick up the pace on table turns because we had a waiting list")
• Shows self-awareness about the challenges of leading peers ("I realised I couldn't be everyone's mate and their supervisor at the same time. I focused on being fair and consistent rather than trying to be popular, and eventually people respected that more")
• Demonstrates that they've thought about what kind of leader they want to be ("I've worked under supervisors who micromanage and ones who disappear. Neither works. I want to be present enough that the team knows I'm there to help, but hands-off enough that they feel trusted")
• Mentions earning respect through competence rather than authority ("I made sure I was the hardest-working person on every shift. When people see you're not asking them to do anything you wouldn't do yourself, they follow your lead")
• Acknowledges mistakes in their leadership journey ("Early on I tried to be too friendly and avoided giving critical feedback. A waiter's table service was slipping and I didn't address it for weeks. By the time I did, it was a bigger conversation than it needed to be. Now I give feedback in the moment")

Red flags to watch for:

• Has never actually led anyone and speaks entirely in hypotheticals ("I think I would be good at...")
• Describes leadership as issuing instructions ("I'd tell people what to do and make sure they do it")
• No awareness that leading former peers creates specific challenges
• Confuses being liked with being respected - a supervisor who prioritises popularity will avoid difficult conversations
• Speaks negatively about previous supervisors without acknowledging what they learned from them
• Cannot describe how their behaviour or approach would change in a leadership role versus a team member role

Customisation tips:

• For internal candidates, ask directly about how they'd manage the specific individuals on your team, including close friends
• For external candidates with supervisory experience, probe how they established themselves in a new team
• For candidates with no formal supervisory experience, explore any informal leadership situations - sports teams, community groups, training responsibilities
• For fine dining environments, discuss how they'd maintain the service hierarchy while keeping team morale positive

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Natural leader who earns peer respect; gives specific, reflective examples of leading others and navigating the peer-to-leader dynamic with maturity
• 4 - Good: Navigated the transition well with clear examples of growth and self-awareness; may still be developing their leadership identity
• 3 - Average: Some adjustment challenges overcome; understands the concept of leadership transition but limited practical experience or depth
• 2 - Below Average: Struggled with peer dynamics; sees leadership primarily as authority rather than influence, or cannot describe actual leadership situations
• 1 - Poor: Unable to establish authority; no evidence of leadership capability or a mindset that would support the transition

Standards Enforcement

Why this question matters:

A restaurant supervisor's primary job during service is maintaining the standards that define your guest experience. When the floor is full, the kitchen is backed up, and three tables are waiting for drinks, it's tempting for everyone - including the supervisor - to cut corners. The supervisor who lets standards slide during busy periods is training the team that standards only matter when it's quiet. Within weeks, your Thursday lunch service looks different from your Saturday dinner service.

What good answers look like:

• Describes a specific system for maintaining standards during pressure ("I do a walkthrough before every service checking table settings, lighting, music level, and that every team member is correctly presented. During service, I position myself where I can see the most tables and do constant visual checks")
• Shows they can enforce standards without micromanaging ("I trust my team to deliver because we've trained together on what 'great' looks like. My role during service is to catch the exceptions, not to supervise every interaction. If I see a plate going out that doesn't meet presentation standards, I intercept it once and coach the team member after service")
• Gives an example of holding the line when it was difficult ("During a 90-cover Saturday, we had a new waiter who was forgetting to clear correctly between courses. Instead of doing it myself or ignoring it, I pulled them aside for 30 seconds, showed them the sequence quickly, and checked their next three tables. It cost me a minute but saved the standard for the rest of the night")
• Discusses how they communicate standards to the team ("I run a three-minute pre-service briefing covering tonight's specials, any VIP guests, and one specific standard focus - this week it's water service, next week it might be crumbing tables")
• Mentions how they handle pushback on standards ("When a waiter argued that resetting cutlery between courses was pointless in a casual restaurant, I explained how it affects the guest's perception of care. I showed them by running two tables side by side - one reset properly, one not - and asked them which they'd prefer as a guest")

Red flags to watch for:

• Standards are vague ("I just make sure everything looks good") - a supervisor needs to know exactly what the standard is for every element of service
• Describes doing everything themselves rather than ensuring the team delivers ("If something wasn't right, I'd just fix it myself")
• Lets standards slide when busy - specifically says things like "When it's hectic, you have to prioritise" without explaining what they'd never compromise on
• Has never actually enforced a standard against resistance - standards enforcement only works if you've done it when it was uncomfortable
• Confuses being picky with maintaining standards - the best supervisors focus on what matters, not on trivial details
• Cannot describe what their restaurant's actual standards are beyond generic phrases

Customisation tips:

• For fine dining, focus on detailed service sequence knowledge and attention to minutiae (glassware position, crumbing technique, sommelier service)
• For casual dining, explore how they maintain standards when the team may see detailed service as unnecessary
• For chain restaurants with prescribed standards, ask how they'd enforce SOPs without becoming robotic
• For independent restaurants developing their service identity, discuss how they'd help shape and embed new standards

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Maintains excellence without micromanaging; specific examples of systems for monitoring standards and coaching the team; holds the line under pressure
• 4 - Good: Consistently upholds standards with good examples of proactive monitoring and correction; may occasionally default to fixing things themselves
• 3 - Average: Standards sometimes slip under pressure; understands the importance but limited evidence of maintaining them during genuinely busy periods
• 2 - Below Average: Struggles to enforce standards; either too lenient with the team or doesn't have a clear picture of what the standards actually are
• 1 - Poor: Standards not prioritised; sees them as secondary to "getting through the shift" or cannot articulate what standards they'd enforce

Team Performance

Why this question matters:

Every restaurant team has someone who's coasting, someone who's struggling, and someone who's capable of more but isn't being pushed. A supervisor who can't address underperformance, support struggling team members, and stretch high performers will end up carrying the weakest members while losing the strongest. That's how you get a team of adequate performers rather than a team that delivers outstanding service.

What good answers look like:

• Describes a specific performance conversation with a real outcome ("A waiter was consistently forgetting to upsell desserts and coffees. Instead of just telling them to remember, I spent a service watching them and realised they were overwhelmed with their section size. I reduced it temporarily, worked with them on table management, and within two weeks they were upselling confidently on a full section")
• Shows they address issues promptly rather than letting them fester ("I give feedback within the shift where possible. If someone's service sequence is wrong, I'll catch them between tables and correct it immediately. Waiting until a review meeting two weeks later means they've practised it wrong another twenty times")
• Balances correction with recognition ("I make a point of recognising good performance publicly - calling out great upselling in the pre-shift briefing, acknowledging someone who handled a difficult table well. People are more receptive to correction when they know you notice the good stuff too")
• Discusses how they handle repeated underperformance ("After coaching a team member three times on the same issue, I escalated to a formal conversation with the manager. I documented each coaching session, which made the formal meeting straightforward because the evidence was clear")
• Shows empathy alongside accountability ("One of my waiters went through a personal issue and their performance dropped noticeably. I spoke to them privately, acknowledged the situation, and agreed on a short-term plan with reduced section size. Once things settled, they gradually returned to full performance. If I'd just disciplined them, we'd have lost a good person")

Red flags to watch for:

• Avoids difficult conversations entirely ("I just hope they improve" or "I'd just work around them")
• Goes straight to formal disciplinary without coaching first - this creates a fear-based culture
• Only addresses performance through public criticism or humiliation
• Cannot give a specific example despite claiming supervisory experience
• Describes a one-size-fits-all approach to performance management ("I treat everyone the same")
• Sees underperformance as the team member's problem exclusively, with no reflection on whether training, workload, or support was adequate

Customisation tips:

• For teams with high staff turnover, ask how they'd approach performance management with staff who might leave at any time
• For fine dining with experienced teams, discuss managing performance when team members have more experience than the supervisor
• For casual dining with younger teams, explore how they'd mentor and develop first-job employees
• For venues with tipping structures, ask about how they handle performance issues that affect other team members' earnings

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Addresses issues directly with positive outcomes; gives specific examples of coaching, supporting, and developing team members; balances accountability with empathy
• 4 - Good: Handles performance conversations professionally with clear examples; may be developing their approach to the most complex situations
• 3 - Average: Can address issues with support; understands the importance of performance management but limited evidence of handling it independently
• 2 - Below Average: Avoids difficult conversations; either too lenient or too punitive, with few examples of constructive performance management
• 1 - Poor: Cannot address performance issues; ignores underperformance, creates conflict, or relies entirely on management to handle team issues

Service Recovery

Why this question matters:

Things go wrong in every restaurant service. Food comes out late, a booking gets lost, a waiter spills a drink. What separates outstanding restaurants from mediocre ones isn't the absence of mistakes - it's how those mistakes are handled. Your supervisor is the person who turns a potential one-star review into a guest who comes back specifically because of how the problem was resolved. A supervisor who panics, blames the kitchen, or tries to sweep issues under the carpet will cost you regulars.

What good answers look like:

• Describes a specific recovery situation with a clear outcome ("A guest's main course arrived lukewarm. Before they even flagged it, I noticed their expression change when they took the first bite. I approached the table, acknowledged the issue, took the plate back immediately, had the kitchen expedite a fresh one, and sent over a glass of wine while they waited. They left a five-star review mentioning the recovery specifically")
• Shows they take ownership even when the fault lies elsewhere ("The kitchen sent out the wrong dish to a table. Rather than blaming the kitchen, I apologised to the guest, explained it was our mistake, and handled the correction quickly. After service, I spoke with the kitchen about the ticket system to prevent it happening again")
• Demonstrates a systematic approach to common issues ("I keep a mental list of our most common service failures and pre-prepared responses. Long wait for food? I'm at the table within ten minutes to set expectations and offer a drink. Wrong order? Immediate apology, remove the dish, rush the correct one. Rude staff? Immediate supervisor intervention, apology, and a follow-up call the next day")
• Shows they empower the team to recover too ("I trained my waiters to handle basic recoveries themselves - they have authority to comp a round of drinks or a dessert without checking with me first. This means most issues are resolved before they escalate")
• Follows up after the initial recovery ("I always check back with the table 15 minutes after a recovery to make sure they're genuinely satisfied, not just politely putting up with it. And I follow up on any negative feedback within 24 hours")

Red flags to watch for:

• Blames the kitchen, other staff, or external factors for service failures - a supervisor owns the guest experience regardless of who caused the problem
• Default recovery is giving things away for free without assessing whether the complaint is genuine or the guest is trying it on
• Cannot describe a specific recovery situation - only speaks in generic terms about "dealing with complaints"
• Becomes defensive or argumentative when describing guest complaints ("Some customers just complain about everything")
• No follow-through after the initial recovery - handles the moment but doesn't learn from it or prevent recurrence
• Freezes under pressure rather than taking decisive action

Customisation tips:

• For fine dining, discuss recovery approaches for high-value guests and how they'd handle situations involving expensive wine or tasting menus
• For casual dining with high volume, focus on speed of recovery and empowering the team to handle routine issues
• For restaurants with active social media presence, ask about their approach to guests who threaten online reviews
• For venues with complex menus (dietary requirements, allergens), explore how they'd recover from an allergen-related issue

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Turns failures into memorable recovery moments; specific examples of proactive, decisive action that resulted in guest retention or positive feedback
• 4 - Good: Recovers effectively and learns from issues; handles most situations professionally with good outcomes
• 3 - Average: Can recover most situations with adequate outcomes; may lack the proactive instinct or the confidence to act decisively in difficult recoveries
• 2 - Below Average: Struggles with recovery; tends to blame others, freeze under pressure, or default to giving things away without genuine resolution
• 1 - Poor: Service issues escalate under their handling; avoids confrontation, makes situations worse, or cannot take ownership of guest experience

Practical Trial

Why practical trials matter:

Many restaurant workers who interview well as supervisors revert to waiter mode the moment they step onto a busy floor. The practical trial reveals whether they can genuinely hold the supervisory perspective - watching the whole room, directing the team, maintaining standards, and intervening appropriately - rather than getting pulled into serving individual tables.

What to observe:

Demonstrated floor awareness and presence - Did they position themselves to see the whole room? Did they scan tables regularly rather than fixating on one area? A supervisor who parks themselves behind the till or in the kitchen pass lacks the floor awareness the role demands.

Directed team members effectively - Did they give clear, timely direction to waiters? Watch for calm, specific communication ("Table 12 needs clearing before their mains arrive" rather than vague guidance or no direction at all).

Maintained service standards under pressure - As the service got busier, did they hold the standards or let things slide? Watch specifically for table settings, food running temperatures, drink service timing, and guest acknowledgment.

Handled guest interactions professionally - Did they engage naturally with guests? Watch for warmth, confidence, and the ability to read guest mood. A supervisor who avoids guest contact or is overly stiff will set the wrong tone for the team.

Supported management and team appropriately - Did they balance upward communication (flagging issues to you) with downward support (helping the team)? A good supervisor bridges between management and floor staff without being exclusively in either camp.

Setting up an effective trial:

• Schedule during a moderately busy service, not your quietest or busiest shift
• Brief your team to work normally and follow the candidate's direction
• Give them a clear scope: "You're supervising the floor for the next 45 minutes"
• Position yourself where you can observe without hovering
• Note specific moments and decisions rather than general impressions

How to score the trial:

• 5 - Exceptional: Natural supervisor capability; maintained floor awareness, directed the team effectively, upheld standards, and handled guest interactions with confidence
• 4 - Strong: Good leadership demonstrated; comfortable in the supervisory role with only occasional moments of reverting to waiter mode
• 3 - Adequate: Shows potential with development; some good supervisory instincts but inconsistent in maintaining the leadership perspective throughout
• 2 - Below Standard: Struggled with supervisory tasks; spent most of the trial acting as a waiter rather than supervising the floor
• 1 - Inadequate: Not suited for supervisor role; couldn't maintain floor awareness, direct the team, or operate at the supervisory level

Cultural Fit Assessment

Beyond skills and experience, cultural fit determines whether a restaurant supervisor will stay and thrive in your team. Select all indicators that genuinely apply based on your observations throughout the interview and trial.

Shows leadership without arrogance - Did they come across as someone the team would respect and follow willingly? The best restaurant supervisors lead through earned authority, not positional power.

Demonstrates service excellence focus - Do they genuinely care about the guest experience? Watch for whether they talked about guests with interest and warmth, or just as part of the job.

Takes ownership of shift outcomes - Did they describe taking responsibility for how a service went, or did they distance themselves from problems? Supervisors who own the outcome drive improvement.

Supports team development - Did they mention wanting to help team members improve? A supervisor who sees development as part of their role builds a stronger floor team over time.

Interest in management progression - Do they see supervision as a career step or a dead end? Candidates with ambition tend to invest more in the role because it's part of their bigger picture.

Positive about accountability - Were they comfortable discussing being held accountable for results? Supervisors who welcome accountability tend to hold their teams accountable too.

Weighted Scoring

The weighted scoring system reflects what matters most for restaurant supervisor success. Leadership and service excellence carry equal weight because a floor supervisor must drive both team performance and guest satisfaction.

Leadership carries 30% because the supervisor sets the standard for the entire floor team. Rate 1-5 based on leadership transition answers, team performance management, and trial observations. Multiply by 0.30.

Service excellence also carries 30% because a supervisor who doesn't prioritise the guest experience undermines everything. Rate 1-5 based on standards enforcement, service recovery answers, and trial observations of guest interactions. Multiply by 0.30.

Team management carries 25% because a supervisor who can't address performance issues will carry underperformers indefinitely. Rate 1-5 based on team performance answers and their approach to coaching and accountability. Multiply by 0.25.

Cultural fit carries 15% because it affects retention and how well the supervisor integrates with your existing management team. 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 transitioning into the supervisory mindset
• 3.0 to 3.4: Consider second interview - potential but significant questions remain about their readiness to lead
• Below 3.0: Do not proceed - significant concerns that training alone cannot address

Customisation tips:

• For fine dining where service detail is paramount, increase Service Excellence to 0.35 and reduce Team Management to 0.20
• For casual dining with high turnover teams, increase Team Management to 0.30 and reduce Service Excellence to 0.25
• For internal promotions where cultural fit is already known, increase Leadership to 0.35 and reduce Cultural Fit to 0.10
• For restaurants in turnaround situations, 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 supervisory capability; move fast before they accept elsewhere
• Hire - Good candidate, offer position: Solid choice who would strengthen your floor leadership and grow into the role
• Maybe - Conduct second interview or check references: Potential shown but questions remain - perhaps strong on service but untested as a leader, or vice versa
• Probably Not - Significant concerns, unlikely to hire: Issues identified that are unlikely to resolve through training; only reconsider if no other candidates
• Do Not Hire - Not suitable for this role: Clear misfit for the supervisory 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 leadership capability and how they handle pressure
• Training needs if hired (your service sequence, POS system, booking system, wine knowledge)
• Availability constraints or notice period discussed
• Notable strengths to leverage from day one (guest interaction style, team communication, standards awareness)
• Concerns to monitor during probation (reverting to waiter mode, avoiding difficult conversations, peer relationship dynamics)

What's next

Once you've selected your restaurant supervisor, proper onboarding is essential for setting them up to lead effectively. See our guide on Restaurant Supervisor onboarding to ensure your new hire transitions from team member to leader smoothly and starts running the floor with confidence from week one.