Pros: I understand that this is a well-respected organization in the East Bay and it provides much-needed services to the community. The interview process was quick; I met with the Executive Director once for a screening interview and then a panel for a final interview. Cons: This organization told me multiple times in my interview that they sought to be "the best non-profit in the Bay Area." The interview was unfortunately the opposite of that. Each panelist had what looked like an email of interview questions printed out with no space for notes, and panelists were not prepared, often not sure who was asking which question next. At one point one of the panelists told me that they had not seen my resume at all. After brief introductions, the first question asked was "Tell us about a time you made a decision that others did not agree with." There was no rapport building (which is the opposite of what mental healthcare providers seek to establish with their clients), and at times panelists seemed bored or disinterested. I understood that this was a final interview; the panel of 5 senior leaders were finished asking questions of me within 30 minutes, and I spent the next 30 minutes asking questions of them. I did not get a sense that the interviewers particularly liked me or were interested in learning details of my day-to-day work. When the interview finished, the ED shared that I would hear next steps from the recruiter, which I found odd given that I had already met once with the ED one-on-one. The recruiter called me a few days later to share the feedback that the team had questions about my ability to provide direct service work given my current administrative role. Had the panelists probed or asked me about my direct service work, they would not have been able to accurately say that is a concern. This qualification wasn't communicated and certainly was not assessed. The recruiter also shared that the panelists were concerned about my ability to travel and be present for in-field time. I'm assuming that this is because I shared my ideal working scenario would be hybrid, but again, not one panelist probed and asked me for my own non-negotiables of remote versus in person work. I can see a world where both of these issues would be valid concerns, with one caveat-- none of this was directly asked of me, and there was certainly no time to learn my authentic answers to these questions in 30 minutes. Furthermore, these are fundamental hiring qualifications that should have been screened before moving to a panel (that didn't even ask me them). I felt as though I gave time, attention, and effort to a process that was not granted the same respect in return. I don't think that the feedback I received was fair, honest, or grounded in any real evidence, but rather speculation. I wish this team luck in working towards their goal of the "Best Nonprofit in the Bay Area."