Chicago Beyond interview questions

After applying there was quick contact. The first email requested that I fill out a business chemistry survey, I think to gauge my working style and compatibility with their current team. They also asked I answer two questions (that I already responded in my application). 1. Why are you interested in this role, at Chicago Beyond, at this time? 2. Can I confirm that you are able to work full-time, five days per week on-site from our Chicago office? For small nonprofit organization the communications felt very cold. The second email invited me to a 45 minute-interview with as they said, "current Director of Operations." This gave me pause as I also knew they were hiring a Director of Business Operations though I did not know if this was the same person they hired for the DBO role or if the person interviewing me was leaving. While the time between the first and second email was quick, the slots for an interview were a month out. On the zoom interview, there was no introduction or conclusion summary of the role, the organization or the person interviewing me, other than their name and role. They jumped right into questions that felt misaligned with the key functions of the job description for an administrative and operations associate. Instead the questions gave the sense that there is culture problems at the organization. Their questions ended with the same questions asked in the application and/or first email contact: I can work in office 5-days a week, I can work without visa sponsorship. At this point, the hiring process felt disorganized, missing intentionality and streamlining. When I asked questions it was odd that they made a point to inform me that the person would report to them (though I assumed based on the job description) and later said they were on their way out of the organization hence the search for DBO, The timeline of their estimated departure and associate hiring indicated there wouldn't be an overlap. In my opinion it does not make sense to have a staff member leaving to be hiring. Instead they should hire the DBO and have the new person fill the associate role they will be managing. Most of the answers given to my questions were generic and avoided details, revealing there is currently no strategy. By the end of the interview, I got the sense they were mentally checked out and going through the motions of hiring while not caring to find a good fit for the role. Their demeanor was a turn-off and did not make me excited to join the team. They said the following steps in the hiring process included an interview with the Chief of Strategy Officer and then an interview with the CEO.

There were a few to-dos before the actual interview which seems to assess comparability with the team. Although it’s hard to confirm as no one actually ever explained the why behind said activities. Overall the process felt pretty one sided. There were also some fiscal curiosities/red flags that weren’t explained well which can only mean a lack of transparency across their executive team. The fist interview was with the Senior Director of Comms who was very casual and seemed to have a scripted process. It was bizarre to watch her review/read notes or something instead of authentically engaging in the conversation. There’s also a lot of potential overlap between these roles which haven’t been fleshed out very thoroughly. Standard marketing language and process were apparently a mystery to the interviewer. For example, understanding the difference in a marcomm tech stack vs office tools like outlook. The posting for the position has also been up for months so if we’re reading between the lines here they’ve got the wrong gate keepers at the helm. Such an unfortunate situation as the nonprofit space is littered with competition and opportunity and the stages, conversations and overall process are a turn off resulting in lost impact for the broader ecosystem.