Avaaz Foundation Interview Questions

Interview

I made it to stage 3 of the interview. The application itself requires you to answer a questionnaire. After 1 week of submitting my resume, they contacted me for an interview. Stage 1 consists of a short, 30-minute exercise with mostly personality/fit questions, and one content question with a current Avaaz campaigner. Stage 2 is a 24-hour practical exercise, where you're given a few scenarios and should respond to them. Stage 3 was a one-hour interview with another Avaaz campaigner, that included some personality/fit questions and some scenario questions. I heard back quickly, usually within a few days between each round.

I didn't have a negative experience, as some people described on here. Both my interviewers seemed kind. They were strange interviews though, and I felt like I left them more confused than anything.

Application

I applied online. The process took 2+ months. I interviewed at Avaaz Foundation.

Interview

The time between when I applied to when I was offered a position was approximately two months. Even when there were delays, communication throughout the process was excellent.

I enjoyed answering the initial questions in the application and they set me up well to understand how the process would be different. The interviews over Skype were appropriately intense as they were well designed to determine whether I would thrive at the organization. I constantly needed to remind myself to own “my stuff” and be willing to be challenged to go deeper. Any of my performative or surface level answers were quickly called out as such and I was given an opportunity to try again from a deeper, more authentic level. I was not perfect in doing so - it's hard in an interview context! - but focused on remaining engaged in trying, which is what was important.

I did three separate skills based exercises and received thorough feedback on each. Words were not minced when feedback was given, which is a style that I appreciate.

Even if I had not received an offer, the process of diving more deeply and reframing my experience and direction would have been valuable.

Application

I applied online. The process took 2 weeks. I interviewed at Avaaz Foundation.

Interview

I had a one-on-one skype interview with a recruiter for the organization named Elana. Throughout the interview she was combative, rude, and condescending. It was such a nasty experience that I almost cut of the interview in the middle of the interview. It seemed as if she was trying to be more of a therapist than a manager. It was so unforgettable and uncomfortable that I wrote to the executive director Ricken who I received no response from despite having met him at several political events.

The whole time she was explaining how elitist the organization was and how they described themselves as meritocratic (an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth) even though I was asked no real questions about my skills (I am HIGHLY respected and accomplished in my field) and instead very leading personal questions. Elana went to explain how she and a man had created their entire management process and kept fishing for compliments.

Overall, the worst interview experience I have ever had. I really worry for the staff here and based on other interview reviews I've read and my own I would highly recommend avoiding this problematic organization.

Application

I applied online. The process took 3+ months. I interviewed at Avaaz Foundation (Asheville, NC) in September 2018.

Interview

I had five 1-on-1 interviews with different team members over Skype and Zoom. The first four interviews went well and I enjoyed answering the non-standard questions and the discussions that came up around my answers. Talking about triggers is a good exercise and I appreciated the feedback I received from the interviewers. There were some misplaced notes and confusion around who was supposed to be interviewing me but none of it was a big deal.

 The fifth interviewer stated their outstanding concern from my earlier interviews, that I only heard about in this interview, was that they did not believe I would be able to give the hard feedback they expect in their company culture. I asked if there was a scenario that they would like me to listen and respond to with feedback. Instead I was asked to give feedback on the interview process.

 This seemed odd to me and made me really uncomfortable. I stated that but pushed past it and gave very direct feedback about the complete lack of voices of color in the hiring process of this international organization. There was no discussion around my critique or follow-up questions. I was then told that if I was offered a position I would have to give up all side work and let Avaaz determine when I could volunteer with other organizations on my personal time. I was a bit shocked upon hearing this since I had talked openly about the work I do in both my small side business and volunteer positions in all of my other interviews and was told that they wouldn't be a problem.

 The next day, I sent a thank you email for the interview and I mentioned that, while I did appreciate the opportunity to offer feedback, I was uncomfortable offering all of my thoughts in an "interviewer/interview-ee" dynamic. I received an email within 15 minutes saying that they would not be moving forward with my interview process because...

"We ask you to walk in with 100% trust and only withdraw it if you are given reason to. We also require full and complete feedback up, down and sideways as a condition of being on the Avaaz team"

 While I was bummed out that I didn't get the job, the role seemed like a good fit for me, I am okay with this outcome because I don't want to work in a place that is about mind games. If Avaaz wants people to "walk in with 100% trust" they should at least tell their interview-ees that this is an expectation and allow people to decide for themselves if that is something that they can honestly offer. I was asked about hierarchical style management in almost every interview, perhaps one of those times I could have been asked whether I believe 100% trust in an organization is a healthy requirement from an employer instead. I could have saved all of us some time.

 It is hard for me to believe that Avaaz is actually getting the feedback that it needs versus the feedback that it wants to hear with this hiring process, but that is none of my business. I wrote this review so that folks going into this interview process know what Avaaz wants from them before doing the emotionally intensive work that will leave you exposed. If you cannot give them 100% trust when you submit your resume, this is probably not the organization for you either.

Application

I applied online. The process took 2 weeks. I interviewed at Avaaz Foundation (Chicago, IL) in September 2018.

Interview

They used "youcanbookme" to make it easy to schedule the interview, but then required setting up Skype for the interview itself. While that was not challenging, it was not as easy/straightforward as just sharing a WebEx, Zoom, etc. or using any of the other numerous platforms available for video interviewing.

Application

I applied online. I interviewed at Avaaz Foundation.

Interview

Short Skype one on one interviews + written assignments. It seemed rather unfriendly. They came off as quite fearful and combative on their side, like they were trying to prevent certain kinds of people from joining the organization. They repeatedly stated (in both interviews) that Avaaz is very hierarchical and asked if I would be alright in such an environment. I found it strange because most organizations/companies wouldn't be proud of this. I lost interest in the middle of the process. By the end, I had the sense that this was a pretty harsh and cold work environment.

Application

I applied online. The process took 3+ months. I interviewed at Avaaz Foundation.

Interview

I applied (extensive questionnaire) and moved on to a test. I then did two interviews. They were very odd and felt manipulative. In the middle of one they said "I was going to ask you some questions about emotions but I feel that you've been very closed off and not in touch with your emotions." (Then they asked the crying at a staff retreat question that other reviewers have mentioned.)

Look, I care about workplace culture and fit and don't mind questions about cultural fit, but it is incredibly manipulative to play a trick (likely they ask that of all applicants regardless of how they show up) and force you to emotional openness when you don't even have the job yet. I was really uncomfortable by how disrespectful two white middle-class senior staff were in regards to manipulative questions about emotions. In the end, they rejected me, saying I was very strategic (read: overqualified for the junior position) but needed to work on my self-management. To make such a sweeping assessment after meeting me briefly in an interview rather than making an assessment after working with me is just poor hiring practices and is disrespectful to the applicant.

They invited me to apply again in a year and I decided against it because they came off as very cultlike and suppressive of dissent and protective of the CEO who has been there for years. They don't want anyone who will shake things up.

I am now in a senior position at another digital first organization that has a much better culture than Avaaz and grateful I got to know how they will force you to share more about your emotions than you are comfortable with and then use it against you. I would really advise Avaaz to stop playing tricks in interviews and stop giving sweeping unsolicited feedback. It doesn't actually get you better applicants, but Avaaz isn't actually interested in getting the most qualified applicants, they want to make sure they don't hire anyone who will question authority and shake things up. I'm all for hierarchy when it's used well, but their questions are more about sussing out your loyalty to them rather than your qualifications.

Application

I applied online. I interviewed at Avaaz Foundation (New York, NY) in February 2018.

Interview

In-person, over skype. Friendly, communicative, and respectful. It lasted about a half hour, and covered quite a lot of ground. The interviewer was very helpful in explaining the structure of the interview and the areas we would cover.

Application

I applied online. The process took 4 weeks. I interviewed at Avaaz Foundation (New York, NY) in January 2018.

Interview

I sent an application via the Avaaz website.
A couple of weeks later, I received an email indicating I will have a first conversation with one of Avaaz campaigner. We scheduled an appointment on Skype.
The interview lasted 1 hour and was divided in 3 parts:
1/ A lots of questions about management, the way you like to work, collaborate (etc)
2/ Practical exercises corresponding to the job
3/ Questions we are free to ask

Interview

Filled out a very lengthy personalized questionnaire about why I thought I would be a good fit at Avaaz, my work experience, etc. This process took quite some time. Then received an additional email some time later asking me to give a detailed response about architecting their system, which they expected would take up to an hour. At this point, I had some additional questions about the nature of the role, the team's size, etc. as the job posting had been rather vague, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to spend multiple hours on an interview before even figuring out whether or not the job is a good fit. I received a form response about how they'd be able to give me more information about the job once I'd answered their technical question. I passed -- there are plenty of other companies that are willing to at least chat with me and get some additional detail about the job given my credentials (degree from a top 5 engineering university, have worked for one of the tech giants). I recommend that they streamline their process and get some better HR folks in place who have more of an interest in ensuring that a job is a mutual fit, and not just having people jump through hoops for the sake of it.