JOB SCORECARD — Head of Growth Marketing Criterion 1: Pipeline Generation Track Record Exceptional: Has built pipeline programs that demonstrably grew qualified pipeline by 2x or more, with specific numbers they can cite and defend. Can attribute pipeline to specific channels and decisions they made. Unacceptable: Cites vanity metrics like impressions or followers. Cannot answer "what was your pipeline contribution last year" with a number. Has only worked in large marketing orgs where attribution is murky. Criterion 2: B2B SaaS Marketing Expertise Exceptional: Has owned full demand gen for a B2B SaaS company targeting a comparable segment. Understands PLG vs. sales-led motion and can articulate which fits our situation. Knows HubSpot deeply as a practitioner, not just an administrator. Unacceptable: B2C background. Has used HubSpot but never owned the stack. Doesn't know what MQL-to-SQL conversion means or hasn't tracked it. Criterion 3: Team Building Capability Exceptional: Has hired and developed marketers who went on to senior roles. Has a clear philosophy on what makes a good marketing hire and can articulate it. Has fired people when needed and can discuss how they handled it. Unacceptable: Has never hired anyone. Relies on "I'd want smart people who care" type answers. Cannot give a specific example of someone they developed. Criterion 4: Analytical and Budget Ownership Exceptional: Has owned a marketing budget, made trade-off decisions across channels, and can show how they adjusted based on performance data. Can walk through a CAC/LTV calculation from memory. Unacceptable: Has "worked with" budgets but never owned one. Gets vague when asked about channel-level ROI. Can't discuss a decision they made based on data that turned out to be wrong. Criterion 5: Operating in Ambiguity at an Early-Stage Company Exceptional: Has worked at a company with under 100 people where they had to build from scratch. Understands that tools, processes, and playbooks don't exist and is energized by that, not frustrated. Has examples of starting something from zero. Unacceptable: Only worked at established companies with mature marketing functions. Needs a team in place before they can produce results. Asks about existing playbooks and headcount before asking about the problem. --- STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Behavioral Question 1: Tell me about the highest-impact marketing program you have personally built and run. Not one you contributed to — one you owned from idea to result. Strong answer: Specific channel or program, clear before-and-after metrics, personal decisions they made, honest about what worked and what didn't. Weak answer: Describes a team effort without clarity on their role. Uses phrases like "we built" throughout without specifying what they specifically did. Cannot give the number. Behavioral Question 2: Tell me about a time you killed a marketing channel or program you had invested in because the data told you to. Strong answer: Names the channel, explains the data that led to the decision, describes how they convinced stakeholders, and what they shifted investment to. Shows they can make unpopular calls. Weak answer: Cannot think of an example. Describes a situation where someone else made the call. Gets defensive about sunk cost. Behavioral Question 3: Walk me through how you hired your best marketing team member. What did you look for, what was the process, and how did they turn out? Strong answer: Has a clear sourcing story, describes a structured evaluation, can articulate what specifically made this person excellent, and has evidence of their growth or impact. Weak answer: "I posted a job and found someone great." Cannot describe what criteria they used. Has only hired interns or contractors. Behavioral Question 4: Describe a time when you disagreed with leadership on a marketing priority. What did you do? Strong answer: Describes a specific disagreement, shows how they made their case with data, explains the outcome — even if they lost the argument — and what they learned. Weak answer: Says they haven't disagreed or always defer to leadership. Describes a conflict as someone else being wrong without acknowledging complexity. Competency Question 1: Walk me through how you would build a 90-day plan to grow our qualified pipeline from $2.4M to $6M over the next 12 months. Start from what you'd want to know before making any decisions. Strong answer: Asks about current channel mix, ICP definition, sales cycle length, existing content, sales team capacity. Does not jump to tactics. Shows they understand pipeline math. Weak answer: Immediately proposes specific tactics without asking questions. Focuses on top-of-funnel awareness plays. Does not mention working backward from a pipeline number. Competency Question 2: Our paid LinkedIn campaigns have a $220 CPL but sales is converting those leads at 8%. Our content leads have a $40 CPL but convert at 2%. How do you think about this trade-off? Strong answer: Works through the math (LinkedIn: $2,750 per opportunity, content: $2,000 per opportunity). Asks about sales capacity constraints. Discusses whether to optimize the weaker channel or double down on what works. Does not give a simple answer. Weak answer: Says "content is clearly better because lower CPL." Does not do the math. Cannot explain what else they would want to know. Competency Question 3: How do you structure a weekly marketing review? What are the 5 metrics you are looking at every week and why? Strong answer: Names specific metrics relevant to pipeline (MQLs, SQL conversion rate, pipeline created, CPL by channel, content engagement by ICP segment). Explains the decisions each metric informs. Mentions what they would escalate vs. handle directly. Weak answer: Lists vanity metrics like impressions, followers, open rates without connecting them to pipeline or revenue. Cannot explain why each metric matters. Situational Question 1: You are three months in and your best hire quits unexpectedly. You are behind on pipeline targets, your CEO is watching closely, and you now have a team of two instead of three. What do you do in the first 48 hours and the next 30 days? Strong answer: Triage immediately — which programs can continue without this person, which must pause, what needs to be handed off. Communicates proactively to CEO. Does not start by hiring immediately. Evaluates whether the role needs to be rehired in the same form. Weak answer: Immediately starts the hiring process. Does not address the business impact or CEO relationship. Gets defensive about the timeline. Situational Question 2: Six months in, you have data showing that your highest-converting channel is outbound sequences written by sales — not your marketing campaigns. The CEO wants to double down on inbound. How do you handle this? Strong answer: Presents the data clearly, recommends following what works, proposes a path to test whether inbound can be improved to match outbound conversion, does not protect their turf. Weak answer: Argues for inbound because it's their domain. Dismisses the outbound data. Does not suggest a test. Culture and Values Question: We have a policy of radical transparency — every employee sees revenue numbers, pipeline, and churn. How has working in a data-transparent environment affected the way you make decisions, and what has it been like when that transparency revealed uncomfortable truths? Strong answer: Has worked in a transparent environment and can cite specific examples of how visibility changed decisions. Is not rattled by the question about uncomfortable truths — shows they can handle it. Weak answer: Has never worked this way and is vague about how they would adapt. Focuses only on the benefits without acknowledging the discomfort that comes with full visibility. --- SCORING RUBRIC Score 4 — Exceptional: Answer is specific, quantified where possible, demonstrates clear ownership and judgment. Reveals genuine insight the interviewer didn't expect. Shows how this person thinks, not just what they've done. Score 3 — Strong: Answer addresses the question directly with a real example. Metrics or specifics are present. Shows competence but not exceptional depth or self-awareness. Score 2 — Adequate: Answer is on topic but vague, generic, or relies heavily on "we" without clarity on personal contribution. Lacks specifics or numbers. Score 1 — Weak: Answer misses the point of the question, is evasive, or raises a concern that should be discussed in debrief. No evidence of the competency being assessed. --- RED FLAG GUIDE Red flag 1: Says "we" for everything and cannot clearly articulate their specific decisions or contributions when asked directly. Red flag 2: Cannot name their pipeline contribution from their most recent role with a specific number. Red flag 3: Has only worked in marketing roles where they did not own budget or headcount. Red flag 4: Frames every setback as someone else's fault — bad data, bad leadership, bad product — without acknowledging their own role. Red flag 5: Asks about team size, existing tools, or playbooks before asking about the problem they'd be solving. Red flag 6: Pitch feels like they want the title more than the work — talks about "building strategy" but cannot describe getting hands-on. Red flag 7: Cannot describe a marketing decision they made that turned out to be wrong and what they learned from it. Red flag 8: Vague about why they are leaving their current role — deflects, gives only positive framing, does not tell a coherent story. Red flag 9: Gives different answers to the same question when asked in different ways — suggests rehearsed answers rather than genuine experience. Red flag 10: Gets uncomfortable with direct feedback during the interview itself — if they react poorly to a probing follow-up question, that is signal for a direct feedback culture. --- DEBRIEF FRAMEWORK Question 1: Before anyone shares their view — on a scale of 1-4, write down your score for this candidate and hold it up simultaneously. What's the variance and why? Question 2: What is the single strongest signal you observed — the moment or answer that most increased your confidence? Question 3: What is the single biggest concern you are leaving this interview with? (Everyone must answer — no passing.) Question 4: Is there any answer they gave that you would want to probe further before making a decision? If so, what is it and how would we get that answer? Question 5: Does this person have a specific skill or experience gap we already knew about going in? Is that gap acceptable given their strengths? Question 6: Would you personally go to this person for advice on a hard marketing problem? Yes or no, and why? --- OFFER FRAMEWORK Lead with the total picture — base, equity value at current and projected valuation, expected bonus or variable if applicable, and the growth opportunity. Never lead with just the base number. Confirm their current situation first — have they told their current employer they are leaving, do they have competing offers, is there any timeline pressure on their end. Most likely counter-argument 1 — The base is below what they are making now: Acknowledge it directly. Reframe around equity upside and the scope of the role. If base is firm, offer an accelerated 90-day review tied to a specific metric that triggers an increase. Do not negotiate against yourself. Most likely counter-argument 2 — They want a larger team or more resources before committing: Be honest about what is realistic in the next 6 months. Offer to show them the financial model and headcount plan so they can see what the growth trajectory looks like. If they need a guarantee you cannot make, that's a signal — a builder wants the challenge, not the guarantee.