Real-Life Nonprofit Interview Nightmares

When it comes to hiring for nonprofit roles, the interview process is crucial. Positions such as development directors, administrative staff, and case managers are the backbone of any nonprofit organization, and one misstep during the interview can lead to lasting repercussions and make you lose out on potential talent. 

At Talbott Talent, we understand the unique challenges that come with nonprofit hiring. Our relational approach and deep nonprofit expertise set us apart. However, if you’re handling your organization’s hiring internally yourself, we also recognize the value in learning from what not to do.

In this blog post, we’ll delve into some of the most shocking and entertaining real life interview blunders from the nonprofit sector. These experiences are actual experiences that have been relayed to us from candidates.

These aren't just humorous anecdotes; they're stark reminders of how quickly an interview can go off the rails and what can happen when hiring managers aren’t trained on hiring. 

Through these real-life examples, we aim to highlight the critical importance of preparation, respect, and clear communication in the hiring process. By avoiding these common pitfalls, nonprofits can better attract and retain the dedicated professionals they need to support their missions. 

---

Bad Interview 1 :
“Do you Know Rich People?”

What Went Wrong

A candidate with a background in fundraising and development, was being interviewed for a development manager position at a small arts organization. The interview was conducted by the executive director and the office manager. The candidate (one of our now team members) was overqualified for the role, but was so passionate about the organization that she wanted to explore the opportunity.

During the interview, the Office Manager leaned in eagerly and asked, "Do you know rich people?" 

The candidate was so taken back, not only because she found herself needing to answer and explain the question, but she also found herself trying to educate the interviewees on how that wasn’t the right approach to donor development. 

The unexpected question immediately shifted the focus away from the candidate's qualifications. Despite the candidate's efforts to discuss her extensive experience in donor relations, the Office Manager continued to interrupt, listing wealthy individuals she knew and waiting to see if the candidate recognized any names. The Executive Director contributed little to the conversation, leaving the Office Manager to dominate the discussion.

Why This Was Wrong

Unprofessional and Invasive: The question about knowing rich people was inappropriate and invasive, reducing the candidate's qualifications to her social connections rather than her professional merits.

Misalignment with Job Requirements: The focus on personal acquaintances overlooked the essential skills and experiences a development professional brings, such as strategic planning, donor cultivation, and successful fundraising.

Uncomfortable Atmosphere: The interview created an awkward and uncomfortable atmosphere, making the candidate feel undervalued and out of place, which could deter other talented individuals from considering the organization further.

Leadership Gap: When the interview was heading in a wrong direction, the executive director should have taken control of the interview.

What the Nonprofit Should Have Done Instead

Asking misguided questions that are out of scope with the skills and experience of the position not only diminished the candidate's respect for the local organization but, if the candidate shared about the bad interview, the experience also potentially caused losing other qualified professionals who could have decided not to apply or be considered. People talk.

The nonprofit should have focused on the candidate's professional achievements and strategic approach to development. Relevant questions could have included:

• "Can you describe a successful fundraising campaign you led and the strategies you used?"

• "Tell me about a time you had to develop a donor cultivation plan. What was the result?"

• "Tell me about the last time you identified a major donor and wanted to establish a relationship with them. What did you do? What was the result?"

By concentrating on the candidate's experience and skills, the interviewers would have created a respectful and professional dialogue. This approach demonstrates the organization’s seriousness about the role and their respect for the candidate’s expertise.

Bad Interview 2:
The Unplanned 4-Hour Interview

A nonprofit organization we are aware of was struggling to hire for lead case manager positions. Despite initial interest from strong candidates, they consistently lost them after the interview stage. One of their biggest frustrations was about losing their dream candidate, who was currently employed at a partner agency. They didn’t know what went wrong, because the candidate seemed eager and excited at the first interview.

What Went Wrong

The dream candidate had already participated in two virtual, one-hour interviews with the nonprofit. After two virtual interviews (and two hours of her time where she was asking off work),  she was invited for an in-person interview, scheduled to last 45 minutes. 

She took a long lunch break from her current job to attend. However, during the in-person interview, the organization decided to "test her commitment and interest" by extending the interview to two hours, followed by an unscheduled, hour-long tour of the organization. Afterwards, they asked her to wait for another hour to "observe" a meeting. None of these additional activities were communicated in advance.

Why This Was Wrong

Disrespect for the Candidate's Time: Extending the interview and adding unscheduled activities showed a blatant disregard for the candidate's time and prior commitments. This was particularly troubling given that the candidate had already taken time off work for the previous interviews.

Lack of Professionalism: The impromptu extension of the interview process demonstrated a lack of organization and the nonprofit's ability to plan and execute a professional hiring process.

Indecisive Leadership: Despite the extensive interview and additional activities, the organization failed to make a decisive move. After three interviews and 5+ hours of her time, the nonprofit still told the candidate they still had other interviews and would get back to her in a few weeks, leaving her in limbo despite her demonstrated commitment and qualifications.

Such an interview process not only disrespects the candidate's time and expertise but also signals poor leadership, organizational inefficiency, and unfair hiring practices implicitly favoring people with time and resources to invest rather than skills and experience. This can deter qualified professionals from wanting to join the organization, harming its ability to attract and retain top talent.

What the Nonprofit Should Have Done Instead

The nonprofit should have adhered to the pre-scheduled 45-minute interview and clearly communicated any additional activities or expectations in advance. Steps should have included:

• Respecting the Candidate’s Time: Keep to the scheduled interview duration and ensure any tours or additional meetings are communicated and agreed upon beforehand.

• Professionalism and Organization: Plan and structure the interview process to reflect a systematic and consistent process. 

• Clear Communication: After the scheduled interview, provide timely and clear communication about next steps, demonstrating decisiveness and respect for the candidate's commitment.

By maintaining a respectful, organized, and transparent interview process, the nonprofit would have demonstrated its professionalism and respect for the candidate’s time and expertise. This approach not only attracts but also retains qualified professionals who are essential for advancing the nonprofit's mission.

---

Bad Interview 3:
The Sleepy ED

A statewide association was in the process of hiring a Controller, a key position responsible for overseeing the financial operations of the organization. The interview was conducted by the Executive Director (ED).

What Went Wrong

During the interview, the candidate noticed the ED repeatedly nodding off. Despite the candidate's efforts to stay focused and articulate her qualifications, the ED's apparent disinterest and lack of engagement were evident. The candidate attempted to engage the ED with questions about the organization's financial challenges, but the sleepy ED's intermittent dozing made it abundantly clear that the candidate was not going to be fully considered.

Why This Was Wrong

Unprofessional Behavior: The ED falling asleep during the interview was highly unprofessional and disrespectful, signaling a lack of interest in the candidate and the hiring process.

Negative Impression: The candidate was left with a poor impression of the organization's leadership and culture, which could deter her and other potential candidates. The nonprofit needs to consider employer branding at all stages of the hiring process. Professionalism, respect, and effective communication during interviews reflect the organization’s culture and values, attracting top talent and building a positive reputation.

Missed Opportunity: The ED’s disengagement meant missing a crucial opportunity to assess the candidate’s qualifications and convey the organization's vision and expectations.

What the Nonprofit Should Have Done Instead

If the ED was too tired or unwell to conduct the interview effectively, the organization should have offered to reschedule. Or, as often happens, maybe the ED didn’t know that she was going to be tired until she was actually sitting in the interview.

The sleepy ED should have been honest with the candidate and just said, “I want to be honest with you. This is not a reflection on you at all, and I want to make sure I can give you my full attention. Could we walk and talk a little bit?”

The nonprofit should have ensured the ED was fully prepared and engaged throughout the interview. Relevant steps could have included:

• Active Participation: The ED should have remained alert and engaged, asking relevant questions and actively listening to the candidate’s responses.

• Structured Format: Implementing a structured interview format with predefined questions, ensuring all key areas are addressed and the candidate is evaluated thoroughly.

By maintaining an engaged, professional, and structured interview process, the nonprofit would demonstrate its commitment to finding the right candidate and respecting their time and expertise. This approach enhances the organization’s reputation and helps attract top talent who can significantly contribute to the nonprofit’s mission and financial stability.

---

We know that not everything can be perfect when it comes to the nonprofit hiring process. These examples highlight some of the biggest mistakes that can occur during the interview process, and they underscore a critical point: leading with your best foot is essential when conducting interviews. A professional, respectful, and well-organized interview not only reflects well on your organization but also ensures you attract and retain top talent. 

At Talbott Talent, we understand the unique challenges nonprofits face in the hiring process. That's why we've created this FREE Nonprofit Interview Guide, designed to help you rock your nonprofit's interviews. By following our guide, you can avoid common pitfalls and create a positive, engaging experience for every candidate, setting the stage for your organization's continued success.

Learn best practices in nonprofit hiring and recruiting. On the blog…