Art+Feminism · Deputy Director selection

Shortlist Panel Interview Rubric

Final-stage assessment of integrated judgment, authority, partnership and readiness

Lead dashboard← Longlist rubric
PurposeDecide whether the finalist can hold the authority, ambiguity and trade-offs of the role
StatusFinal-stage panel tool · September 2026

This rubric builds on evidence gathered in the longlist interview. It tests integrated judgment rather than repeating broad competency questions or rewarding the most polished performance.

Core principle

The shortlist is not a harder version of the first interview. It asks whether the candidate can exercise sound authority in Art+Feminism’s actual conditions. Scores structure attention; appointment decisions must be grounded in evidence, material risks and the support the role will realistically receive.

01

Interview record

Recommended duration: 60 minutes · Primary decision: recommend appointment, hold for defined evidence, or do not recommend

Disclosure

(Tick all boxes that apply)

Please indicate whether you know this candidate outside this recruitment process. Knowing a candidate does not automatically prevent you from participating.

02

Final-stage interview guidance

Go deeper where the role requires judgment; do not try to cover every responsibility again.

Purpose and suggested interview flow

Purpose of this conversation

Use a shared case and a small number of demanding questions to see how the finalist prioritises, exercises authority, challenges well, holds people accountability, protects community knowledge and enters the role. Encourage clarifying questions and changes of mind: the panel is assessing reasoning, not theatrical certainty.

Suggested 60-minute flow

Welcome, access check and frame5 min
Integrated organisational scenario20 min
Leadership judgment questions20 min
First 90 days and mutual fit10 min
Candidate questions5 min

  • Review the longlist evidence, application and any agreed work sample. Do not use shortlist time to repeat questions already answered well.
  • Agree the one or two uncertainties this interview must resolve for every finalist, while keeping the same core questions and scenario.
  • Assign question leads, a timekeeper and a shared note-taker. Preserve at least five minutes for candidate questions.
  • Tell the candidate how the scenario will work: they may think aloud, ask clarifying questions and revise their answer.
  • Confirm access arrangements. Do not score internet connection, camera use, accent, response speed, disability-related accommodation or familiarity with dominant US nonprofit language.

1Material concernReasoning or evidence indicates a significant mismatch with the role, its authority, values or operating context.
2Limited confidenceRelevant exposure is present, but the answer stays general, misses important consequences or requires substantial prompting.
3Appointable evidenceDemonstrates credible judgment at the level required, with normal onboarding, support and context-building.
4Strong appointable evidenceIntegrates competing considerations, makes trade-offs explicit and demonstrates sound, proportionate action.
5Exceptional evidenceShows unusually clear, self-aware and context-sensitive judgment across strategy, people, systems, power and capacity.
N/ONot observedThe conversation did not produce enough evidence. Define the unresolved question and the appropriate next evidence source.

  • Score independently before discussion and start with the evidence that supports the score.
  • Ask whether the candidate is appointable against the role—not merely preferable to the other finalist.
  • Separate a role-critical risk from a panel preference about style, familiarity, charisma or ‘fit.’
  • Name the most material appointment risk and decide whether it is manageable through onboarding, role clarity or support.
  • Record unresolved evidence and use the right source: references should verify past behaviour, not answer hypothetical interview questions.
  • Document the final recommendation and any conditions. A weighted score informs the decision; it does not make it.

03

Core questions and assessment

Ask the core questions consistently. Probe the candidate’s reasoning, trade-offs and boundaries—not their ability to guess the panel’s preferred answer.

For each area: ask, record evidence, then score.

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

  1. Three months into the role, you find that the annual operating plan is not consistently used, two fractional leads have overlapping accountability, and a funder has offered a time-sensitive opportunity that advances the mission but would stretch capacity. Walk us through your first 72 hours and first 30 days. What do you decide, what do you clarify, and what do you deliberately not take on?
View guidance and optional follow-up prompts

What strong evidence looks like

  • Identifies the decisions that matter most before proposing tools, meetings or a wholesale redesign.
  • Makes capacity, risk, dependencies, power and mission consequences visible and sequences action proportionately.
  • Distinguishes what they can decide, what requires the Executive Director, and what needs Board, staff or community input.
  • Names what should pause, stop or remain deliberately unresolved rather than promising to solve everything at once.

Optional probes · use only if needed

  • What information would materially change your approach, and how would you get it without delaying every decision?
  • What would you communicate, to whom, and by when?
  • Where could your approach fail, and what early signal would tell you to adjust?

Assessment note: The scenario has no single correct answer. Assess prioritisation, boundaries and the quality of the candidate’s reasoning—not whether their sequence matches a panelist’s preferred solution.

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

  1. Tell us about a consequential disagreement with an executive leader. How did you challenge the decision, what happened, and what did you own after the decision was made?
  2. Suppose the Executive Director wants to make a commitment that you believe the organisation cannot deliver responsibly. What would you say in the room, and what would you do if the decision remained to proceed?
View guidance and optional follow-up prompts

What strong evidence looks like

  • Can challenge an Executive Director directly and privately while preserving trust, shared accountability and clear external alignment.
  • Understands the difference between advising, deciding, implementing and escalating—and makes those boundaries explicit.
  • Brings decision-ready recommendations with risks and trade-offs rather than only identifying problems.
  • Can support an agreed decision without becoming passive, triangulating or obscuring material risk.

Optional probes · use only if needed

  • What would cause you to escalate to the Board, and what would not?
  • How do you prevent a close executive partnership from becoming a bottleneck or an inner circle?

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

  1. A well-liked team member repeatedly misses commitments. The explanations include workload, role ambiguity and personal difficulty, while colleagues are absorbing the gaps. How would you determine what is support, what is accountability, and what fairness requires for both the person and the team?
  2. Tell us about a time care and accountability pulled in different directions in your leadership. What did you do, and what did you learn?
View guidance and optional follow-up prompts

What strong evidence looks like

  • Separates workload, role design, support and performance issues before choosing an intervention.
  • Pairs care and accessibility with timely, specific expectations and consequences; does not leave the wider team carrying an unresolved pattern.
  • Notices how positional authority, race, gender, geography, language, employment status and proximity to leadership can shape whose account is believed.
  • Can describe a fair process without promising false neutrality, unlimited consensus or confidentiality they cannot maintain.

Optional probes · use only if needed

  • What would you document, and who would need to know?
  • How would you test whether bias or unequal power was affecting your interpretation?

Assessment note: Do not reward punitive certainty or conflict avoidance. Strong evidence combines clear expectations, contextual judgment, equitable process and willingness to act.

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

  1. A major funder asks for standardised metrics across countries. Network Organizers say the proposed system erases local context and increases unpaid labour. How would you respond to the funder and design a learning approach the organisation could use responsibly?
View guidance and optional follow-up prompts

What strong evidence looks like

  • Treats community knowledge as decision-making evidence, not extractive reporting material or a communications asset.
  • Can negotiate funder requirements while protecting local context, privacy, accessibility and the finite capacity of Network Organizers.
  • Designs a light, usable learning loop with clear questions, contributors, synthesis, decisions and feedback back to communities.
  • Can name when evidence should change a programme, resource allocation or organisational assumption.

Optional probes · use only if needed

  • Who has authority to define what counts as evidence?
  • What would you refuse, negotiate or resource differently?
  • How would contributors see what changed because of what they shared?

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

  1. At the end of your first 90 days, what would you want to understand, stabilise and make visible—and what would you deliberately not promise?
  2. What conditions help you do your best work with an Executive Director, and what pattern in your own leadership would we need to manage together?
View guidance and optional follow-up prompts

What strong evidence looks like

  • Offers a sequenced, learning-led entry plan that builds trust and makes a small number of meaningful improvements visible.
  • Names realistic dependencies and avoids premature promises, performative urgency or an assumed mandate to redesign the organisation.
  • Is candid about the conditions needed for an effective partnership with the Executive Director and distributed team.
  • Identifies a genuine leadership pattern, risk or growth edge and a credible way of managing it.

Optional probes · use only if needed

  • What would you need from us in the first month?
  • What might be hardest for you to unlearn or adapt in this environment?

Assessment note: Assess candour and plausible readiness. Do not treat a highly detailed pre-employment plan as stronger evidence than a thoughtful approach to learning the actual context.

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 unresolved evidence and questions from the candidate

05

Appointment judgment

Complete individual assessment before panel discussion. Compare the candidate with the role, not only with the other finalist.

Weighted evidence score— / 5.00

Calculated only across competencies with observed evidence.

Assessment completed0%
Evidence observed0%

0 judgments marked N/O.

Integrated organisational judgment under constraint25%—
Executive partnership, governance and constructive challenge20%—
People accountability and feminist power practice20%—
Learning architecture and community accountability20%—
Readiness, first 90 days and self-awareness15%—

Before choosing a recommendation, reflect:

  • Would we appoint this person if there were no other finalist? What specific evidence makes them appointable?
  • What is the most material risk of appointment, and is it role-critical or manageable?
  • Are any concerns based on style, familiarity, charisma or similarity to us rather than job evidence?
  • What support, authority and role clarity would we need to provide for this person to succeed?

Do you recommend this candidate for appointment?

The weighted 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.