There were lengthy, but mostly very pleasant and interesting conversations. I never felt like I was under a microscope or being tested, but I was. The initial interviews with the HR team and my potential supervisor and colleague felt very conversational and more like two-way opportunities for me to learn more about the organization, and for them learn about my personality and work style, than a nerve wracking interview. But does an organization that supposedly believes in employee autonomy really need three interviews with HR personnel before you meet your potential lead? Ultimately, every conversation was so pleasant and interesting - I didn't mind. It really seemed like my potential supervisor and the project manager were excited at the idea of working with me and the feeling was mutual. The panel interview was where I was voted out. Most likely by one of the Senior VPs. It was the only instance where I can think of a glitch in the interview process where he asked me a very specific and intricate question about something going awry in past jobs, and how I responded. The particulars of the question were a bit confusing to me as I had never had that particular experience. Ultimately, he reframed the question and I answered. We moved on and I thought that interview went well enough. Guess not. To me, this was the most bizarre and ultimately disappointing interview experience I've ever had with an organization. I've walked away from interviews with less confidence that I landed the job but then I did. This was the reverse of that. The other reason it was bizarre was because the whole panel interview and it's influence on candidates receiving an offer seemed to contradict its own philosophy of constructing empowerment-based management in a non-profit organization, which one of their directors promotes and elaborates on in his February 2022 column for Forbes. I didn't see much evidence of Stand Together as being an organization that trusts its employees or gives them autonomy, which the director describes as key elements to keeping your non profit employees happy and committed to the cause in the Forbes column. If that were the case the final panel interviews would not have had so much influence in their decision to hire me. Ultimately the HR team, and even the approval of my potential supervisor and direct colleagues meant diddly if some higher up felt itchy about having me on their team. According to him I wasn't "forthcoming" enough in my responses to him. I spoke with eight different individuals altogether, for 30 - 60 minutes each, and was more than happy to share my glorious triumphs and humble learning curves from past positions, so I really think there was something or someone else just blocking me. I mean, if that's all it takes, just have the higher ups direct the recruiting process from early on and save everybody's time and effort. Spare us the appearance of some kind of egalitarian non profit utopia and narrow down the candidates yourself, then offer that pool to the hiring manager for the particular role, saying, "Here are your choices." That would be honest and much more efficient. It may not be a recruitment procedure to brag about in a Forbes column or post about on LinkedIn, but its honest and ultimately more kind for the candidates. I think I wanted to believe in Stand Together because I was so moved by the content they promote of changing and ameliorating the lives of people who have struggled. But ultimately I saw the contradictions I experienced in my interview process reflected in many of the reviews I have read here, from employees who actually worked there. As a potential employee of Stand Together and the Foundation, I would take the ideals of employee autonomy and trust with a huge grain of salt; in fact, make it a chunk. I walked away thinking that if I really wanted that position I should have performed more and just made up work scenarios that never really happened, just so one of their executives didn't have to reframe a question.