Art+Feminism · Deputy Director selection
Longlist Team Interview Rubric
Operational and learning leadership for a global feminist knowledge organization
Informed by Black Lunch Table’s generosity in sharing its interview rubric and redesigned for Art+Feminism’s Deputy Director role and two-stage selection process.
Core principle
Scores help structure attention; they do not replace judgment. Qualitative remarks must name the evidence behind each assessment. Candidates are compared with the role criteria, not with one another or with an imagined “culture fit.”
01
Interview record
Recommended duration: 55–60 minutes · Primary decision: advance, hold or do not advance
02
Interview guidance
The first interview tests credible work within Art+Feminism’s real environment; the shortlist interview tests the authority and judgment required to hold the role.
Purpose and suggested interview flow
Purpose of this conversation
This interview tests whether the candidate understands the combined operations-and-learning mandate and can work effectively with a lean, globally distributed team. It should establish credible evidence of values alignment, practical coordination, learning orientation and communication. It is not the final technical assessment and should not attempt to cover the whole job description.
Suggested flow
- Review the candidate’s resume, application responses and any agreed candidate-specific question.
- Assign question leads and identify who will watch time, take shared notes and manage the candidate’s questions.
- Ask every candidate the same core questions. Use optional probes only to clarify or deepen an answer.
- Join five minutes early to confirm the interview flow and any access arrangements.
- Do not score internet connection, camera setup, accent, communication style, disability-related accommodation, or familiarity with dominant US nonprofit language.
- Complete individual scores and evidence notes before discussing the candidate.
- Begin with evidence from the interview and application, not general impressions or likability.
- Name divergent assessments and examine the evidence behind them; do not average away a material concern.
- Record what was not observed and decide whether it belongs in the next interview, a bounded exercise or reference checks.
- Document the final recommendation and its rationale. The highest numerical score is not automatically the strongest appointment decision.
03
Core questions and assessment
Use optional probes only when needed. Record specific words, examples or decisions as evidence.
Use the 1–5 scale, or N/O when evidence was not observed. Add evidence notes for every score. The strong-evidence guide helps you assess the answer; it does not mean notes are only needed for high scores. Weights are used automatically in the summary.
Ask the candidate
- What draws you to Art+Feminism and to this particular combination of operational and learning leadership?
- Having reviewed the role, what do you understand the Deputy Director to be accountable for — and what should remain with the Executive Director, Board or external specialists?
View guidance and optional follow-up prompts
What strong evidence looks like
- Motivation is specific to Art+Feminism’s feminist knowledge mission, communities and current strategic phase rather than generic nonprofit interest.
- Understands that the Deputy Director is the Executive Director’s closest internal operating partner, not a second Executive Director or the default owner of every unfinished task.
- Can explain why operations and organizational/community learning belong together in this role.
- Demonstrates curiosity and respect toward Wikimedia, open knowledge, arts and cultural institutions, feminist and LGBTQ+ movements, including where direct experience is limited.
Optional probes · use only if needed
- Which parts of Art+Feminism’s mission or operating context would you need to learn more deeply? How would you approach that learning?
- What about this role would stretch you?
Assessment note: Direct Wikiverse experience is helpful but not mandatory. Assess the candidate’s understanding, humility and ability to learn without treating insider vocabulary as proof of alignment.
Choose one rating across the core questions in this area.
The rating describes the evidence you heard. The percentage is this area’s contribution to the weighted score.
Ask the candidate
- Tell us about a time you turned broad strategy into a workable plan or operating system. What did you put in place, and how did people actually use it?
- When a new opportunity is valuable but the team is already at capacity, how do you help leadership decide whether to proceed?
View guidance and optional follow-up prompts
What strong evidence looks like
- Translates broad direction into outcomes, owners, timelines, dependencies, review points and decisions.
- Builds systems proportionate to the size and capacity of the organization instead of defaulting to complex tools or excessive process.
- Can identify what should stop, shift, wait or receive additional resources when priorities conflict.
- Uses examples that show what they personally decided, built, changed or learned.
Optional probes · use only if needed
- What did you deliberately leave out or keep light?
- How did you know whether the system was helping rather than becoming additional work?
Choose one rating across the core questions in this area.
The rating describes the evidence you heard. The percentage is this area’s contribution to the weighted score.
Ask the candidate
- Describe a complex piece of work you coordinated across a distributed team, contractors or partners. How did you make ownership, dependencies and follow-through visible?
- Imagine that two fractional leads are each waiting for an input from the other and a delivery date is at risk. What would you do first, and how would you prevent the same problem recurring?
View guidance and optional follow-up prompts
What strong evidence looks like
- Coordinates across time zones, cultures, roles and forms of engagement without equating availability with commitment.
- Sets clear expectations, ownership and handoffs while respecting that fractional roles and contracts have finite capacity.
- Surfaces overload, ambiguity and missed commitments early and responds with clarity rather than blame.
- Provides useful feedback, makes disagreement possible and knows when to escalate a decision.
Optional probes · use only if needed
- How do you distinguish a performance problem from a workload, role-design or system problem?
- How do you coordinate people without becoming the person who absorbs every gap?
Choose one rating across the core questions in this area.
The rating describes the evidence you heard. The percentage is this area’s contribution to the weighted score.
Ask the candidate
- Tell us about a learning or evidence practice you created. What did you track, who used it, and what decision or adaptation followed?
- How would you prevent a shared learning system from becoming an additional reporting burden for Network Organizers, community members or a small staff team?
View guidance and optional follow-up prompts
What strong evidence looks like
- Can frame useful learning questions and select a small number of meaningful indicators.
- Captures evidence during delivery and makes it useful to communities, programme decisions, communications, fundraising and accountability.
- Distinguishes organizational or community learning from compliance reporting.
- Can name a decision, adaptation or change that followed from evidence.
Optional probes · use only if needed
- What qualitative evidence mattered, and how did you handle it responsibly?
- What did the evidence fail to tell you?
Choose one rating across the core questions in this area.
The rating describes the evidence you heard. The percentage is this area’s contribution to the weighted score.
Ask the candidate
- Tell us about a time you had to hold authority transparently while people disagreed about the way forward. What did you do, and what would you do differently now?
- Describe feedback that changed how you lead or coordinate. What did you recognize, and what changed in your practice?
View guidance and optional follow-up prompts
What strong evidence looks like
- Communicates clearly, listens actively and responds directly while making room for others.
- Can facilitate across difference and convert a complicated problem into a decision-ready recommendation.
- Demonstrates anti-oppressive, pro-Black, queer- and trans-affirming, accessible and globally aware leadership through concrete practice rather than values language alone.
- Reflects honestly on mistakes, feedback, power and areas for growth.
Optional probes · use only if needed
- How do you make clear when a group is being consulted and when a decision has already been made?
- What helps you notice when you are taking too much — or too little — space?
Assessment note: Do not score confidence, pace or polished language as leadership. Look for evidence of judgment, accountability, care and the ability to work across difference.
Choose one rating across the core questions in this area.
The rating describes the evidence you heard. The percentage is this area’s contribution to the weighted score.
04
Optional candidate-specific question
Use only if you have a follow-up relevant to this candidate and the role. You can leave all three fields blank.
Optional notes on questions from the candidate
05
Score summary and recommendation
Complete individual assessment before discussing the candidate.
Calculated only across competencies with observed evidence.
0 competencies marked N/O.
Do you recommend advancing this candidate?
The numerical score informs this decision; it does not make it.
Review and submit your evaluation
Use the candidate-specific link supplied by the hiring lead to submit this evaluation.