Core Value
Composure and Balance
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 red 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 Examples
Hypothetical (can be based on relevant context and job requirements):
1. You are conducting a research interview using an interpreter and you have asked an open question to prompt a free narrative from a survivor, but the survivor is not talking in any order, they are expressing range of strong emotions from anger, grief and pain and it is hard for both you and the interpreter to follow. How can you manage this situation in a survivor-centred, trauma-informed way?
Main elements expected in answers: prioritise emotional well-being and safety over research objectives, help the survivor to regulate their emotions – acknowledge and validate emotions and allow space for those, assist with grounding exercises and short breaks if helpful to the survivor, stay calm, continue to actively listen and build connection with the survivor so they can also read your level of understanding and ability to follow, don’t force linearity or chronology, help the survivor with gentle prompt and structure to the overall discussion, when appropriate take a break to brief and create solutions and adaptation with interpreter.
Red Flags: taking tight control through interruption and disruption by ordered set of quick fire questions, not responding or acknowledging emotional reactions, showing or voicing frustration or allowing the interpreter to, shutting it down.
Technical test:
1. How can/do you balance empathy with maintaining professional boundaries in this work?
Main elements expected in answers: FOR SELF: self-reflection on own bandwidth, capacity and limitations at that time, management of amount of exposure and efforts to prevent and recognise burn-out, ensuring self-care and time for debriefs and reflection time marked out/maintained. WITH SURVIVORS: early input on time and role clarity, two-way discussion about each other’s objectives, ensure a structured informed consent conversation to reinforce shared objectives, limitations of role/purpose, realistic expectations of what you can and cannot do.
Red Flags: answers which do not balance empathy with boundaries and focus on one or the other, any dismissal of empathy as unprofessional and not part of their role or responsibilities, any answer which does not recognise vulnerability to/risk of over-identifying with a survivor, cases that resonate personally and trigger a strong personal reaction, burn-out and vicarious trauma, or which indicate over-involvement, no distinction between empathy and counselling.
2. How do you ensure a survivor feels a sense of control over a disclosure?
Main elements expected in answers: involving a survivor in the planning, design and logistics of meeting up/engagement, two-way informed consent discussion, open questions with space and encouragement to answer in their own time and words, reminders that they can choose what, when, how much to share and choose not to answer questions or discuss certain topics, respecting any refusals or boundaries set by survivors, check-ins and reminders that they can take breaks when they wish, respecting their wishes and boundaries on time/duration, etc.
Red Flags: emphasising the need to control the structure of the interview and the survivor’s content to ensure their own objectives and information needs are met (task-driven, time-driven), often through over-control through long sets of detailed questions, insisting on answering questions and continued probing past boundaries set by survivor.
3. If a survivor makes choices that you feel are unsafe and beyond your own risk comfort levels, how do you respond?
Main elements expected in answers: ensure sharing of information about risks by you and survivor so decisions based on full accurate information, discuss any potential mitigation measures together, respect agency and do not infantilise, if beyond your comfort level and risk tolerance, discuss your concerns with the survivor, reasons and any alternatives [MC 3.1].
Red Flags: any answer which either ignores safety and risk or unthinkingly replaces risk assessment with survivor choices, any answer which infantilises the survivor or disenfranchises them.
Sample interview questions
1. Please share a work experience in which you felt overwhelmed, emotionally affected or personally triggered by a survivor’s story. What steps did you take and what did you learn?
Main elements expected in answers: an honest self-reflection of a relevant example, clear articulation of learning and change in approach afterwards, mention of use of support/peer debriefs, self-care and self-assessment readiness for interviews [MC 9.1] and learning in terms of boundaries, grounding and responsible responses to normal human reactions which can arise. Should reflect a concern for the impact on the survivor and include some actions which could be taken in that moment to mitigate impact.
Red Flags: dismissive or denial, vague or irrelevant example, either minimising or aggrandising it as having a positive effect, getting supported by the survivor, no articulation of learning or adapted approaches.
2. Describe a time when you were working with someone who had a strong emotional reaction, such as anger or frustration. How did you deal with it?
Main elements expected in answers: a clear, detailed and relevant example which emphasised, prioritisation of survivor emotional safety and well-being, the need to remain calm and composed and give space and time for emotional expression, the importance of not reflecting or mirroring rising emotions and voice tone or volume, etc, acknowledging and validating (rather than minimising or shutting down emotional expression), use of gentle de-escalation techniques such as active listening and reflecting back, giving space to vent, offering grounding and choices (a break, water or shifting pace or topic), having a clear escalation protocol and response system ready and understanding when assistance is required, MHPSS first aid skills may be useful depending on extent of emotions and well-being status.
Red Flags: any answer which suggests avoidance or shutting down emotional expression, involves telling a survivor to ‘calm down’, does not tolerate, validate or acknowledge emotions (except if moving into aggression and they feel unsafe) or chastises the survivor for their emotions.
3. Please share a work example with us when you faced very fluid, rapidly changing circumstance and how you adapted to those.
Main elements expected in answers: a clear, detailed and relevant example which explains the source of the flux/change, describes assessing new circumstances and needs with composure and then identifying a change in approach or a more flexible approach moving forward, shows an awareness of emerging individual survivor needs or change in security/conflict setting.
Red Flags: vague or irrelevant example, no actual change in circumstances (just lack of planning or understanding of the context), no change or adaptation described, showing task orientation in adaptation without reference to survivor needs or wishes.
4. Tell us about a time when you had to set boundaries at work for your own self-care and well-being. What happened and how did you do it?
Main elements expected in answers: clear detailed and relevant example which recognises limits and acknowledges importance of self-care for own well-being and for being able to do the work responsibly and in a survivor-centred, trauma-informed way (if you are not okay, you won’t be okay with a survivor), describes clear practical and realistic steps taken, including seeking organisational support, buddy systems and debriefs, and explains lessons learned and new approach.
Red Flags: vague or irrelevant example, no boundaries described, or setting inappropriate boundaries, any answer which glorifies overwork, burn-out and lack of boundaries or suggests that they are necessary sacrifices.
5. A survivor that you interviewed last week calls you up on your mobile phone. It’s midnight. They are upset and having nightmares stirred up again by the interview. They are alone and afraid in the dark. How do you respond?
Main elements expected in answers: acknowledge and validate distress, explore immediate dangers/acute threats, as appropriate redirect to crisis/acute response, explore what support and coping mechanisms available to survivor in immediate circumstance including lighting, security, grounding techniques and support allies nearby, agree a time to check in the next morning and explore next steps and support.
Red Flags: ignore the call and puts phone on silent, dismissive or minimising of concerns or distress, expressing anger at call, agreeing to go to where they are or allowing them to come to you in your home, spending the rest of the night on the call with them, becoming their main support and counsel, setting no boundaries.