How to Use the Sous Chef Interview Template

Why structured sous chef interviews matter

The sous chef is the most critical hire in any kitchen after the head chef. They run service when the head chef is absent, they translate the head chef's vision into daily execution, they manage the brigade's performance, and they handle the operational complexity that keeps a kitchen functioning. A bad sous chef creates a leadership vacuum that CDPs and commis feel immediately - standards slip, morale drops, and the head chef gets pulled back into operational detail instead of focusing on quality and development.

The challenge with sous chef interviews is that candidates at this level are experienced interviewers. They know what to say. This template cuts through polished answers by focusing on four areas that demand specific examples: leadership experience, service management capability, team development track record, and food safety ownership. The 55-minute format gives you enough depth to probe beyond rehearsed responses.

Structured assessment is particularly important at this level because sous chef hiring often comes down to "chemistry" with the head chef - which can mean hiring someone who agrees with everything rather than someone who'll genuinely strengthen the operation.

Pre-Interview Preparation

Before the candidate arrives, work through this checklist to ensure you're set up for a thorough senior-level assessment.

Review candidate's CV, references and application - At sous chef level, you're looking for a clear progression narrative. How did they move from CDP to sous? What size brigades have they managed? Look for stability - a sous chef who's moved every 8 months might be chasing title over substance. Note specific achievements and areas you want to probe.

Prepare interview room - Sous chef interviews should be conducted somewhere quiet where you can have a genuine conversation. Unlike CDP interviews, the bulk of assessment is conversational rather than practical. You'll want privacy for discussing leadership philosophy and management approaches.

Have scoring sheets ready - At this level, nuanced scoring matters. Have your sheets prepared with space for detailed notes on leadership examples and management approaches.

Review kitchen brigade and current needs - Be honest about what you actually need. Are you hiring because the current sous left, or are you adding capacity? What are the specific leadership gaps? Does the head chef need a strong operational second or a creative partner? This shapes every question.

Ensure 55 minutes uninterrupted time - Senior-level interviews need breathing room. Rush a sous chef interview and you'll get surface-level answers. Brief your entire team that you're unavailable.

Customisation tips:

• For operations where the sous chef runs service independently, add "Prepare recent service data showing typical challenges"
• For kitchens with active development programmes, add "Review current team development plans and progression pathways"
• For multi-outlet operations, add "Prepare overview of cross-kitchen coordination requirements"

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.

Kitchen Leadership Experience

Why this question matters:

The sous chef's primary job is leadership. They need to command a brigade, maintain discipline without creating fear, make decisions under pressure that the whole team trusts, and step into the head chef role seamlessly when required. A candidate who's been a strong CDP doesn't automatically make a good sous chef - the transition from managing a section to managing people across the entire kitchen is where many chefs fail. You need to understand whether they've genuinely led, or simply been the most experienced person in the room.

What good answers look like:

• Describes specific leadership experience with scale and context ("I was sous chef for a 14-person brigade in a 180-cover restaurant. I ran service independently 3 nights a week and was responsible for all scheduling, performance management, and daily briefings")
• Shows understanding of the difference between doing and leading ("As a CDP, my job was making great food on my section. As sous, I realised my job was making sure everyone else could make great food on theirs. The hardest transition was stepping back from cooking to focus on the team")
• Gives examples of supporting the head chef effectively ("My head chef was highly creative but less interested in operations. I built the systems that turned his menu concepts into executable service plans - prep schedules, section allocations, timing sheets for each dish")
• Demonstrates handling difficult leadership situations ("I had to address persistent lateness from our strongest CDP. Rather than letting it slide because of their skills, I had a direct conversation about how it affected the rest of the team. They improved within a week because they hadn't realised the impact")
• References building team trust and respect ("When I first took the sous role, two senior CDPs had applied for the same position. I met with each privately, acknowledged their disappointment, and asked what they needed from me to make the relationship work. Both stayed and became my strongest allies")

Red flags to watch for:

• Describes leadership in terms of authority rather than influence ("I tell them what to do and they do it")
• Cannot give specific examples of managing people - only manages tasks and processes
• Every leadership example is about them personally ("I cooked the best dishes", "I saved the service") rather than their team
• No experience running service without the head chef present, suggesting limited autonomous leadership
• Describes leadership conflicts where they were clearly the problem but doesn't recognise it
• Confuses length of service with leadership experience ("I've been in kitchens for 15 years" without describing actual management)

Customisation tips:

• For operations where the sous works closely with front-of-house management, ask about cross-departmental leadership
• For kitchens undergoing change (new menu, new concept), probe their experience leading teams through transitions
• For large brigades (15+), focus specifically on how they manage span of control and delegation structures

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Proven sous chef with strong track record of leading brigades, managing independently, and developing team capability
• 4 - Good: Solid second-in-command experience with clear examples of autonomous leadership and team management
• 3 - Average: Some kitchen leadership experience demonstrating basic management capability
• 2 - Below Average: Limited leadership exposure with most experience in supervised or section-level management
• 1 - Poor: No relevant leadership experience for a sous chef role

Service Management

Why this question matters:

Running a busy service is the most visible, high-pressure part of the sous chef role. Everyone watches how the sous handles the pass during a 200-cover Saturday night. When a sous chef runs service well, the brigade feels confident, front-of-house trusts the kitchen, and problems get solved before they reach the guest. When they run it badly, panic spreads through every section, food quality drops, and the entire dining experience suffers. This question reveals whether they can actually control a kitchen in real time, not just talk about it afterwards.

What good answers look like:

• Describes their service management approach with specific operational detail ("I run service from the pass. I call orders using a two-call system - first call to fire, second call as a reminder 3 minutes before plating. I check every plate before it leaves and I keep a running count of covers and timing in my head")
• Shows ability to manage multiple sections simultaneously ("During service, I rotate my attention across all sections on a roughly 5-minute cycle. I know which sections need watching closely and which I can trust. If the grill is struggling, I'll stay closer and delegate pass oversight to the senior CDP")
• Gives examples of recovering from service problems ("We had a full gas failure mid-service during a 160-cover Saturday. I immediately moved all cooking to induction and the salamander, adjusted the menu to remove grilled items, briefed front-of-house on the changes, and we finished service with only 3 tables affected")
• Demonstrates coordination with front-of-house ("I do a pre-service briefing with the floor manager every night. We review large tables, dietary requirements, VIP guests, and any timing constraints. During service, we communicate through the expeditor but I'll speak directly to the floor manager for significant issues")
• References systems they've built to improve service consistency ("I introduced a service readiness checklist that every section completes 15 minutes before covers. It catches prep shortfalls before they become mid-service crises")

Red flags to watch for:

• Describes service management in abstract terms without specific operational examples
• Cannot explain how they coordinate timing across multiple sections during complex service
• Only talks about managing problems, never about preventing them through preparation and systems
• Shows no awareness of the front-of-house perspective or guest experience during service
• Describes service management that relies on shouting and pressure rather than organised systems
• Cannot describe how they've handled a genuine service crisis with specific actions and outcomes

Customisation tips:

• For fine dining, probe their experience managing multi-course tasting menus with precise timing requirements
• For high-volume operations, focus on their approach to sustaining quality during 300+ cover services
• For operations with multiple service periods (lunch, afternoon tea, dinner), ask about managing energy and standards across a long day

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Commands service with calm authority, demonstrating specific systems and examples of managing complex services independently
• 4 - Good: Runs service effectively with clear examples of coordination, problem-solving, and quality maintenance
• 3 - Average: Can manage routine service with basic competence, though may need support during exceptional pressure
• 2 - Below Average: Struggles under pressure with limited evidence of systematic service management
• 1 - Poor: Cannot manage service independently, showing no relevant service leadership experience

Team Development

Why this question matters:

A sous chef who doesn't develop their team creates a kitchen that's permanently dependent on the sous chef being present. Every absence becomes a crisis. Every holiday feels like a risk. The best sous chefs build capability throughout the brigade so the kitchen gets stronger over time, not just when the sous is on shift. Beyond operational necessity, team development is the primary way kitchens retain talent. CDPs who feel stagnant leave. Commis who aren't trained become frustrated. The sous chef who actively develops people builds loyalty that money alone can't buy.

What good answers look like:

• Describes specific development examples with measurable outcomes ("I identified that our senior CDP had the skills for sous but lacked confidence running the pass. I gradually handed over service management on quieter nights, debriefed afterwards, and within 3 months she was running Tuesday and Wednesday services independently")
• Shows a structured approach to team assessment and development ("I do a skills assessment with every chef within their first month. I identify their three strongest areas and three areas for growth, then we agree on monthly development goals. I review progress in informal one-to-ones every two weeks")
• Demonstrates handling underperformance constructively ("I had a CDP whose timekeeping was affecting the whole team. I documented the pattern, had a formal conversation with clear expectations, and created a 4-week improvement plan. They turned it around because they finally understood the consequences were real")
• References creating opportunities for growth within daily operations ("I rotate commis chefs between sections every quarter so they build breadth. I also assign prep tasks slightly above their current level - challenging enough to develop them but not so hard that they fail and lose confidence")
• Shows investment in people beyond immediate operational needs ("I encouraged my strongest commis to enter a young chef competition. I helped him develop his dishes on his days off. He came second, and more importantly, his confidence and technique jumped significantly")

Red flags to watch for:

• No specific examples of developing anyone - speaks only in theoretical terms about what they "believe in"
• Every achievement description is about their own performance, never about people they've helped grow
• Describes development as the head chef's responsibility or something HR handles
• Shows impatience with underperformers ("If they can't cut it after a month, they're out")
• No evidence of structured feedback or development conversations - relies on "they'll learn by watching"
• Treats team development as a burden rather than a core part of their role

Customisation tips:

• For kitchens with formal apprenticeship programmes, ask about their experience with structured qualifications and assessments
• For operations with high turnover, probe how they build team capability quickly with constantly changing staff
• For restaurants with progression pathways (commis to CDP to sous), ask about their experience preparing people for promotion

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Creates strong development culture with specific examples of growing team members, structured approaches, and measurable outcomes
• 4 - Good: Actively invests in team training with concrete examples of developing individuals and building team capability
• 3 - Average: Some development initiatives showing basic willingness, though lacks structured approach or significant outcomes
• 2 - Below Average: Limited focus on development with preference for directing over teaching
• 1 - Poor: No team development evidence, with management approach focused entirely on task completion

Food Safety and Standards

Why this question matters:

At sous chef level, food safety is a leadership responsibility, not a personal habit. The sous chef sets the standard the entire brigade follows. If the sous cuts corners during a busy service, every chef in the kitchen sees it as permission to do the same. The sous also typically owns the food safety management system - HACCP documentation, temperature logs, cleaning schedules, supplier checks. One environmental health inspection failure doesn't just generate a bad score - it damages your reputation in ways that take years to recover from. You need a sous chef who makes food safety non-negotiable and embeds it into team culture rather than treating it as a box-ticking exercise.

What good answers look like:

• Describes food safety as a leadership responsibility with specific examples ("I do a full kitchen walk-through every morning checking temperatures, storage compliance, and cleanliness. But more importantly, I've trained every chef to spot issues and report them immediately rather than waiting for me to find them")
• Shows system-level thinking about food safety ("I rebuilt our HACCP documentation when I joined because it hadn't been updated in 2 years. I also introduced a daily food safety briefing point in our pre-service meeting so it stays top of mind for the whole team")
• Gives examples of enforcing standards when it was difficult ("I found our most experienced CDP reusing marinade that should have been discarded. Rather than overlooking it because of their seniority, I disposed of the marinade, explained the cross-contamination risk, and used it as a training moment for the whole team in that day's briefing")
• Demonstrates proactive approach to maintaining high EHO ratings ("We maintained a 5-star hygiene rating for three consecutive inspections during my time. I achieved that by running monthly mock inspections where I'd walk through the kitchen with the same checklist the inspector uses")
• References allergen management at a systems level ("I implemented a traffic-light allergen alert system where any order with allergen modifications gets flagged in red on the ticket. The dish doesn't leave the pass without my personal sign-off confirming the modification was correctly executed")

Red flags to watch for:

• Treats food safety as someone else's problem ("We have a food safety manager who handles all that")
• Cannot describe their kitchen's HACCP system or food safety management approach
• Gives generic answers about "following the rules" without specific examples of leadership in this area
• No examples of enforcing standards with their team - suggests they turn a blind eye to maintain relationships
• Describes cutting corners under pressure as acceptable ("On really busy nights, you have to prioritise getting food out")
• Doesn't mention allergen management at all, which is a critical gap at this level

Customisation tips:

• For operations with complex allergen requirements, probe their experience managing severe allergy protocols
• For kitchens preparing high-risk foods (raw fish, unpasteurised products), test specific knowledge of those hazards
• For operations seeking or maintaining awards (AA, Michelin), ask about their experience with the elevated standards those require

How to score:

• 5 - Excellent: Rigorous standards embedded in team culture with specific examples of systemic approaches and leadership enforcement
• 4 - Good: Strong food safety compliance demonstrated through daily practices and examples of team training
• 3 - Average: Adequate safety awareness covering basic requirements with some team leadership elements
• 2 - Below Average: Safety not prioritised, with limited evidence of team-wide food safety leadership
• 1 - Poor: Poor food safety understanding with concerning attitudes toward standards at a leadership level

Practical Trial

Why practical trials matter:

At sous chef level, the trial isn't primarily about cooking - it's about leadership presence in a kitchen environment. Can they walk into an unfamiliar kitchen and command respect? Do they observe operations with a critical, constructive eye? When they see something that needs addressing, do they handle it with authority and diplomacy? A 45-minute observation period where the candidate interacts with your team and observes your service reveals leadership instincts that no interview conversation can replicate.

What to observe:

Demonstrated strong technical cooking skills - If you include a cooking element, watch for the efficiency and confidence that comes from years of experience. A sous chef should cook with relaxed authority, not stressed concentration. Their technique should be automatic, freeing their attention for the kitchen around them.

Showed leadership presence in kitchen - Observe how they carry themselves in your kitchen. Do they naturally command attention? Do other chefs respond to their presence? Would your brigade accept their authority?

Maintained standards under pressure - Introduce complexity or time pressure during the trial. Watch whether their standards slip or hold. A sous chef who drops quality when pressured will do the same during every busy service.

Communicated effectively with team - Watch how they interact with your current team. Are they approachable yet authoritative? Do they ask good questions? Do they listen as well as direct?

Supported head chef appropriately - If the head chef is present during the trial, observe the dynamic. Does the candidate demonstrate the ability to be a strong second-in-command without overstepping or being passive?

Setting up an effective trial:

• Schedule during a prep period so the candidate can interact with your team naturally
• Brief your brigade to engage normally - not to test the candidate but not to be overly helpful either
• Include a walk-through where you ask them to observe your kitchen and share observations
• If including a cooking element, choose something that shows technique without consuming the entire trial
• Have the head chef meet them briefly to assess the working dynamic

How to score the trial:

• 5 - Exceptional: Outstanding sous chef capability with natural leadership presence, strong team interaction, and excellent kitchen awareness
• 4 - Strong: Good kitchen leadership demonstrated with effective communication and confident presence
• 3 - Adequate: Shows potential with development, demonstrating basic leadership skills and kitchen awareness
• 2 - Below Standard: Struggled with sous chef demands, showing limited leadership presence or team interaction skills
• 1 - Inadequate: Not suited for sous chef role based on trial performance

Cultural Fit Assessment

Beyond skills and experience, cultural fit determines whether a sous chef will build trust with the brigade and work effectively alongside the head chef. Select all indicators that genuinely apply based on your observations throughout the interview and trial.

Shows passion for culinary excellence - Did they demonstrate genuine pride in food quality and kitchen standards? Is their motivation driven by craft, not just career advancement?

Demonstrates loyal second-in-command mentality - Can they support the head chef's vision even when they might approach things differently? Do they understand that the sous role is about enabling someone else's leadership?

Takes ownership of kitchen outcomes - When discussing challenges, do they take responsibility for results rather than deflecting to the team, equipment, or circumstances?

Invests in team development - Based on their examples, is developing people a genuine priority or an afterthought? Would your junior chefs benefit from their approach?

Interest in head chef progression - Are they ambitious in a healthy way? Do they see this role as a development opportunity toward leading their own kitchen?

Positive about kitchen demands - Do they understand the relentless nature of senior kitchen leadership and approach it with energy rather than resignation?

Weighted Scoring

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

Technical skills carry significant weight because the sous chef must be able to cook at the highest level in your kitchen. They need credibility with the brigade, and that comes from demonstrated culinary excellence. Rate 1-5 based on interview responses and trial observation, then multiply by 0.30.

Leadership carries equal weight because the sous chef's primary role is managing people and running operations. A technically brilliant sous chef who can't lead creates a kitchen that depends entirely on the head chef. Rate 1-5 based on their leadership examples, trial presence, and management approach, then multiply by 0.30.

Team development determines whether the sous chef will build brigade capability over time or create permanent dependency on themselves. Rate 1-5 based on their development examples and structured approach to growing people, then multiply by 0.25.

Cultural fit affects the head chef/sous chef dynamic, brigade morale, and long-term retention. Rate 1-5 based on the cultural fit assessment indicators, 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
• 3.5 to 3.9: Hire with development plan - strong candidate who may need support in specific areas
• 3.0 to 3.4: Consider second interview - potential but significant questions remain about readiness for the role
• Below 3.0: Do not proceed - significant concerns that cannot be addressed through on-the-job development

Customisation tips:

• Operations where the sous runs service independently most nights might increase Leadership to 0.35 and reduce Technical Skills to 0.25
• Kitchens with high staff turnover might increase Team Development to 0.30 and reduce Cultural Fit to 0.10
• Fine dining operations might increase Technical Skills to 0.35 and reduce Team Development to 0.20

Final Recommendation

Based on all assessments, select your hiring decision:

• Strong Hire - Offer position immediately: Exceptional candidate who'll strengthen your kitchen leadership from day one; move quickly before they accept elsewhere
• Hire - Good candidate, offer position: Solid choice who meets your leadership, technical, and management requirements
• Maybe - Conduct second interview or check references: Potential but need more information, particularly around the head chef working dynamic
• Probably Not - Significant concerns, unlikely to hire: Leadership gaps, team management issues, or cultural misalignment that can't be quickly resolved
• Do Not Hire - Not suitable for this role: Clear misfit for your sous chef position; 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 to ask about their leadership style and team management
• Training needs if hired (e.g., your specific HACCP system, menu knowledge, management tools)
• Availability constraints or notice period discussed
• Notable strengths to leverage from day one, particularly in areas the kitchen currently needs
• Concerns to monitor during probation, especially around the head chef working relationship

What's next

Once you've selected your sous chef, proper onboarding is essential for establishing their leadership authority and building the head chef partnership. See our guide on Sous Chef onboarding to ensure your new hire builds trust with the brigade, learns your operations, and starts contributing to kitchen leadership from their first week.