I participated in a multi-stage interview process with MFA, including a written assignment that required several hours of preparation, followed by interviews with senior leadership. My initial conversation with the CEO was thoughtful and engaging. I had (and still have) such great hopes for him as he settles in his new role. His passion for the cause really shone through during our chat. The interviewing experience became increasingly disjointed in later stages. The senior leadership panel interview in particular felt misaligned, with very limited shared understanding across strategic priorities. My questions went unanswered. Having worked in similar mission-driven orgs, I found this both surprising and, at times, concerning. The interview format itself also felt dated and overly one-directional. The panel relied heavily on a rapid series of standard, surface-level questions, with little opportunity for meaningful dialogue or follow-up (unlike my chat with the CEO). Time for candidate questions was deferred until the very end, which made the interaction feel more evaluative than collaborative, and didn’t allow for a genuine exchange. Communication throughout the process was inconsistent. After completing a multi-hour assignment and progressing to final stages, I followed up with HR for an update and was told I would receive one “ASAP.” After days of silence, I ultimately chose to move forward with another opportunity. When I notified HR of my withdrawal, there was no acknowledgment of that message. Given the level of time and effort candidates are asked to invest, more consistent communication and basic follow-through would have made a meaningful difference in the overall experience. I hope this feedback is helpful as the organization continues to refine its candidate experience.