first, I think "professional" is too broad a brush to evaluate at once, even using your definition of professional. For instance, I'm very good about taking ow

first, I think "professional" is too broad a brush to evaluate at once, even using your definition of professional. For instance, I'm very good about taking ownership and being accountable. I'm, uh, somewhat less good at actually getting things done on time. I mean, I won't make stupid excuses or try to shift blame, but I am quite often late on actually getting the damn thing done because of my own personal failings, so if you just measured a willingness to accept responsibly when accepting responsibility is unpleasant, you'd think higher of me than you ought. "what is the most costly (to your employer) mistake of your career?" is a good interview question to probe the willingness to take responsibility. I know I've made some expensive mistakes, some of my worst were simply because I typed the wrong thing out of fatigue or inattention. (as I have grown older, I think one of the most important things I've learned is how to tell when I am likely to make a mistake, and when to log out.) I'd argue that a person who claims not to have made expensive mistakes is likely the type to dodge responsibility. (this is eminently true in the ops world. I imagine it's true elsewhere, but I've got a lot less room to speak.) You could also give them a hypothetical where, say, they could have prevented a mistake but it wasn't something they actively caused. Then ask them if it was their responsibility. "If you hired a guy who did something stupid that cost us a lot of money, is it your fault or his fault?" I'd never hire anyone for management who thought it was the hiree's fault. showing up on time, in my experience has nothing to do with a willingness to take responsibility when something goes wrong. As for "gets things done" eh, I'm not the right man to ask about that. When you figure out a better answer than "hire them as a contractor and see" let me know.