I applied in February and received the final outcome at the very end of April, so the process took around 3 months and involved multiple stages.
The first step was a TestGorilla assessment (problem solving, communication, and creative thinking). The questions themselves were manageable, but the biggest challenge was the time pressure. If English is not your first language, the limited time to read, process, and respond can make this stage more difficult than it needs to be.
The second stage was a 20–25 minute screening call with an external recruiter. This part was actually quite relaxed and easy to go through. However, it was also very structured and scripted — for example, questions were shared directly in the chat, and you were expected to answer them one by one. Some of these were very job-specific, such as being given several program actions and asked to prioritize them (what you would do first, second, last, etc.). There was little focus on general background.
The third stage was a take-home assignment, estimated at 3.5 hours. In reality, it required a significant amount of time and preparation. It included:
* Creating a stakeholder mapping and contact sheet with named individuals
* Developing a detailed outreach strategy
* Recording a 1.5 minute video pitching the organization to a manufacturer
* Building a weighted decision-making model in Excel using their frameworks
While I understand the intention to simulate real work, this stage felt excessive for an unpaid assignment — effectively half a workday.
One specific concern was the expectation around the stakeholder contact sheet. Candidates were asked to include specific individuals and contact details, including phone numbers or explanations of how to obtain them. I found this inappropriate, as phone numbers are private information. Even though I personally had access to some of these contacts, I chose not to include them for that reason and instead described how I would obtain them. I don’t think candidates should be put in a position where they feel expected to share or source personal contact information without being part of the organization.
The video task was also quite constrained. Being asked to introduce the organization, explain its value, and persuade a stakeholder within 1.5 minutes felt unrealistic and required speaking at an unnaturally fast pace — especially challenging for non-native English speakers.
The final stage was a panel interview with team members. This included follow-up questions on the assignment and several role-play scenarios (for example, pitching to a government stakeholder within a strict time limit). The interview was quite intense and fast-paced. While I understand they were testing thinking under pressure, some aspects did not fully reflect real-life situations — in practice, you would prepare in advance and have access to internal information.
Additionally, the interview dynamic itself made it more challenging. The panel remained quite neutral and serious throughout, with limited warmth or interaction. While I understand the need for objectivity, this made the environment feel more pressured than necessary and affected the flow of the conversation.
Overall, the process is thorough and clearly designed to assess practical skills, structured thinking, and performance under pressure. I also respect the organization’s mission and found the experience valuable in terms of learning.
However, the overall length of the process, the level of unpaid work required, the expectations around candidate deliverables, and some aspects of how the interviews were conducted felt disproportionate. There is definitely room to streamline the process and make it more balanced from a candidate perspective.
