Core Value
Commitment and Responsibility
Assessing
How to assess or score: for non-subject matter experts
Whatever your question (if you choose or adapt a question from the Anchoring section or create your own), the Deep Dive table can help you identify positive and negative aspects – green or reg flags in a candidate’s answers.
For a simple scoring or assessment scheme, you can simply assign +1 to positive or green flag content and -1 to red flag answers.
For a scoring system of say 0-3 for each question, we would recommend the following matrix to be used in combination with the Deep Dive table for each value or competency. We recommend printing copies of the Deep Dive tables, as well as the full Murad Code, so that these can be easily consulted when assessing a candidate.
| Scoring / grading | Values |
|---|---|
| 0 | Misaligned (harmful, unsafe, or dismissive answers) with red flags - No elements demonstrated or more than 1 limiting behaviors shown. |
| 1 | Weak alignment (superficial, misses core principles) with 1 or 2 red flags - Only 1 or 2 elements demonstrated, with more than 1 limited behaviour also shown. |
| 2 | Partial alignment (mentions some key elements but incomplete) with 1 or no red flags - A good number of elements demonstrated but also 1 red flag or concern raised. |
| 3 | Strong alignment (clear survivor-centred reasoning, practical actions, responsibility) with no red flags - Multiple elements demonstrated and no red flags or limiting behaviours raised. |
Below, there is also an assessment guide to the sample questions provided in the Anchoring section.
Sample written test questions
Hypothetical (can be based on relevant context and job requirements):
1. Remote mission in Sudan scenario.
Main elements expected in answers: shows concern for lack of preparation and urgency of work (MC 5.1, 4.7), questions why it needs to be done and why so urgently (MC 4 information, 4.7 in particular), prioritises safety and well-being of survivors including mapping and vetting referral pathways as prerequisite before survivor engagement (Principles 1.4, 5.6 and 7.7), prioritises overall safety and security of survivors, their information and the project team, understands the need for an informed risk assessment (MC 5.3) and for contextual understanding (MC 6), understands how to approach or create paths for survivors to reach out in safe ways (MC 2.1), considers follow-up and what happens after you leave (MC 5.9), researches who else is doing this work already – actor mapping (MC 5.5).
Expect candidate to push back against urgency and unrealistic timelines so that risk assessments, contextual awareness and referral pathway mapping can be done, as well as a scoping mission. Candidate would be expected to mention the Murad Code and at least some of its relevant principles.
Red flags: prioritises mission objectives over concerns, focuses on logistics and data collection and not survivor safety and well-being, lack of understanding of consequences of remoteness or of urgency without preparation, no mention of risk assessment, no mention of risks from community and ongoing conflict, no mention of follow-up, no mention of the Murad Code or any of its principles.
2. SCRSV survivor complaint about junior staff member.
Main elements expected in answers: takes the complaint seriously, understands the importance of the consent process and confidentiality considerations, shows concern for the complainant, knows the relevant principles of the Murad Code in application to working with the survivor in the complaint (support, confidentiality, privacy, informed consent, dignity and respect), considers and takes responsibility for any systemic/organisational/management failings.
Red flags: focuses on responsibility of junior staff member only, no mention of survivor-centred approaches in relation to handling the complaint, seems dismissive, does not take seriously, delegates to junior staff member to manage or apologise.
Technical:
1. What is your understanding of the Murad Code and its applicability to the job advertised?
Main elements expected in answers: understands the Code as a set of minimum standards around the gathering and use of SCRSV information, based on survivor rights and a survivor-centred approach, recognises the Code’s broad applicability and the need to embed the Code (or its values and benefits) into the parameters of the job, shows awareness of the relevant key sections of the Code .
Red flags: doesn’t know what the Code is, provides vague or superficial answers, argues that the Code is not applicable or relevant to the job, describes the Code in inaccurate ways, cannot explain how principles of the code are relevant and how they could be applied, considers the Code optional or just guidance.
2. How would you operationalise the Murad Code in this job?
Main elements expected in answers: understands the purpose and main provisions of the Code, offers practical examples with reference to specific parts of the Code and how they could be integrated into planning, design, implementation, monitoring and impact (training, risk assessments, Principle 4 assisted decision making, actor mapping, referral pathway mapping and vetting), has experience of prior application of the Code in practice.
Red flags: suggests some or all of Code is not applicable or useful, has no awareness of its content or its applicability, cannot describe any practical ways to integrate or uphold the Code in the work, provides generic answers and no mention of concrete actions, doesn’t connect the Code to the specific job or context.
3. Which principles of the Murad Code do you think would be most challenging to apply in the job advertised and why?
Main elements expected in answers: honestly reflects on specific principles (e.g. ensuring referrals where services are scarce, prioritises urgency over safety, maintaining confidentiality in small or tight communities), explains why its challenging, shows awareness of realities of contexts and practical application, suggests mitigation or creative solutions to meet some of the challenges, has experience of meeting these challenges in other settings.
Red flags: says none are challenging, suggests you can ignore the challenging one and cherry pick the easy ones, chooses or discusses an irrelevant principle to the context.
Sample interview questions
1. Please describe one work example where you applied Murad Code principles to your work.
Main elements expected in answers: provides a clear, concrete, detailed example and relates it to personal responsibility and action, shows awareness of at least one or two Code principles, has experience in applying principles to work, shows ability to reflect on lessons learned and impact.
Red flags: cannot provide an example, describes irrelevant or superficial story or one that relates to work or action by others, focuses on organisational outcomes without reference to survivor rights.
2. Please tell us about a situation in which you had to make a decision whether or not to work with or continue to work with survivors. What were your main considerations and what was the outcome?
Main elements expected in answers: shows awareness of the factors set out in Principle 4 (consideration of role and purpose, alternative sources, realistic outcomes, added values weighed against risks, reflections of drivers of bad practice, rights of overexposure, etc), provides a clear, concrete, detailed example and relates it to personal responsibility and action, considers survivor rights, added value and risks, ably explains why they did or did not proceed, takes responsibility for the outcome, including unintended consequences, shows ability to reflect on lessons learned.
Red flags: cannot provide an example, describes irrelevant or superficial story or one that relates to work or action by others, reveals unethical or inappropriate decision-making in which own objectives or donor pressure/funding trumps survivor rights and well-being, in contravention of the Code.
3. How would you approach a situation that engages survivors or uses survivor information if there is information to give you concern about safety, ethics or effectiveness?
Main elements expected in answers: shows awareness of the factors set out in Principle 4 (consideration of role and purpose, alternative sources, realistic outcomes, added values weighed against risks, reflections of drivers of bad practice, rights of overexposure, etc), explains clear, concrete, detailed steps including risk assessments, mitigation and careful planning, awareness of context and community engagement, understands the need to stop or postpone engagement until minimum standards can be assured, recognises the priority of survivor safety and well-being over work objectives.
Red flags: ignores potential consequences or is unable to describe these, suggests proceeding without acknowledging that stopping or postponing is an option, focuses solely on effectiveness, doesn’t mention survivor safety or well-being, doesn’t mention the Code.
4. How would you apply the principles of the Murad Code/survivor-centredness in this position?
Main elements expected in answers: knows how to embed survivor-centred principles into daily work, shows awareness of concrete actions (policies, team culture, safeguarding, protocols, risk assessments, informed consent procedures, etc), shows awareness of personal action and responsibilities, understands the need to monitor effectiveness of application of principles and provide support and mentoring to ensure they are followed through, provides specific examples from principles of the Code and draws from experience in applying them.
Red flags: provides vague answers without reference to Code principles, frames it as extra work or beyond the core functions, cherry picks principles and describes others as optional or just guidance.