Program Director

Ryan Mahoney

Why this role is hard · Ryan Mahoney

Program directors are genuinely hard to hire because they have to own results without controlling the people delivering them. They need to turn down a compelling grantee whose theory of change doesn't hold up, and also be willing to tear up their own plan when community feedback reveals they got something wrong. You're looking for someone who can find the variance in a spreadsheet and then sit down with a grantee to talk through what it actually means. Most people can do one of those things. The ones who do both usually don't interview well. They pause. They push on your data. They don't project certainty.

Core Evaluation

Critical questions for this role

The competency and attitude questions below are where the hiring decision is made. They run in the live interview rounds and are calibrated to the level selected above.

19 Competency Questions

1 of 19

  1. Discipline

    Program Operations & Infrastructure

  2. Job requirement

    Accountability Systems & Culture

    Implements team check-ins and basic performance management processes; monitors compliance with organizational values.

  3. Expected at Mid

    You implement team check-ins and monitor compliance with organizational values under established senior-level frameworks. Operating at a guided level ensures consistent performance standards and psychological safety, preventing the erosion of equity-centered values and unclear expectations within the program unit.

Interview round: Business Acumen and Stakeholder Impact

Share an experience where you needed to hold yourself or your team accountable for a significant miss on commitments or goals. How did you handle it?

Positive indicators

  • Took personal accountability explicitly
  • Analyzed root causes beyond excuses
  • Notified stakeholders before they asked
  • Made concrete process or expectation changes
  • Followed up on whether changes worked

Negative indicators

  • Blamed external factors primarily
  • Minimized significance of miss
  • Delayed disclosure hoping to recover
  • No systemic follow-up
  • Punitive response to team without analysis

15 Attitude Questions

1 of 15

Active Listening

The disciplined cognitive and behavioral practice of receiving, interpreting, and responding to communicated information in ways that honor the speaker's intent, surface latent meaning, and build mutual understanding—encompassing attention to verbal content, paralinguistic cues, emotional subtext, and systemic or contextual factors that shape what is said and unsaid. For Program Directors, this involves suspending solution-generation, managing power asymmetries that silence dissent, and creating conditions where stakeholders feel sufficiently safe to articulate incomplete or risky thoughts.

Interview round: Recruiter Screen: Role Alignment

You're in a meeting with a funder and your program officer says something that doesn't align with what you understood from previous conversations. How do you respond in the moment?

Positive indicators

  • Proposes specific clarifying question that doesn't assume bad faith
  • Mentions noticing funder's cues or context
  • Considers possibility of their own misrecollection
  • Identifies when to table versus resolve immediately

Negative indicators

  • Immediately corrects or challenges funder's statement
  • Assumes deliberate funder reversal without exploration
  • Proposes continuing based on their understanding regardless
  • No mention of documentation or follow-up planning

Supporting Evaluation

How candidates earn the selection conversation

The goal is to reduce effort for everyone by collecting more useful signal before adding more interviews. Lightweight application prompts and structured screens help the panel focus live time on the candidates most likely to succeed.

Stage 1 · Application

Filter at the door

Runs the moment a candidate hits Submit. Disqualifying answers end the application; everything else is captured for review.

Knock-out Questions

1 of 2

Application Screen: Knock-out

Do you have at least 3 years of professional experience exercising final grant-making authority and autonomous budget accountability for a program or initiative?

Yes
Qualifies
No
Auto-decline

Video-Response Questions

1 of 3

Application Screen: Video Response

Describe a time you had to negotiate a significant scope or budget adjustment with an external funder whose requirements conflicted with your program’s community-centered outcomes. How did you communicate the trade-offs, and what was the result?

Candidate experience

REC
0:42 / 2:00
1Record
2Review
3Submit

Response time

2 min

Format

Recorded video

Stage 2 · Resume Screening

Read the resume against fixed criteria

Reviewers score every application that clears the door against the same criteria. Stronger reviews advance to live interviews; weaker ones are archived without further screening.

Resume Review Criteria

8 criteria
Evidence of developing, managing, and adjusting program budgets tied to measurable service line outcomes and grant deliverables.
Evidence of designing and leading structured feedback sessions, grantmaking panels, or advisory councils that integrate lived experience into program decisions.
Evidence of synchronizing deliverables across development, operations, and program teams while overseeing grant agreements from award through closeout.
Evidence of defining measurable quarterly KPIs for service lines and coaching staff to align individual capacity with portfolio goals.

Does the cover letter or personal statement convey clear relevance and familiarity with the job?

Does the resume indicate required academic credentials, relevant certifications, or necessary training?

Is the resume complete, well-organized, and free from formatting, spelling, and grammar mistakes?

Does the resume show relevant prior work experience?

Stage 3 · During Interviews

Where the hire is decided

Interview rounds use the competency and attitude questions outlined above, then add tests, work simulations, and presentations that reveal deeper evidence about how the candidate thinks and works.

Presentation Prompt

Prepare a short deck walking us through a past program architecture, theory of change, or grant portfolio strategy you designed. Discuss how you aligned budget and outcomes, the tradeoffs you navigated between institutional priorities and community needs, and what you would adjust in hindsight.

Format

deck-and-walkthrough · 20 min · ~2 hr prep

Audience

Executive leadership and peer program directors

What to prepare

  • 3-5 slides summarizing the program context, strategic choices, and measurable outcomes.
  • A 15-20 minute verbal walkthrough connecting your slides to your decision-making process.

Deliverables

  • A concise slide deck (existing work adapted for anonymization)
  • A structured narrative explaining strategic tradeoffs and results

Ground rules

  • Use only work you are permitted to share; anonymize sensitive grantee or funder data.
  • Focus on your reasoning and judgment, not polished marketing materials or new strategic artifacts.

Scoring anchors

Exceeds
Demonstrates sophisticated strategic framing that explicitly links financial architecture to community-defined outcomes; transparently examines failures and shows how they reshaped future practice.
Meets
Clearly walks through a past program or portfolio strategy, explains budget-outcome alignment, and identifies reasonable tradeoffs and lessons learned.
Below
Relies on vague success metrics, avoids discussing tradeoffs or failures, or cannot clearly connect resource decisions to strategic intent.

Response time

20 min

Positive indicators

  • Articulates clear causal links between budget allocation and community outcomes
  • Names tradeoffs explicitly and defends prioritization with evidence
  • Adapts narrative to audience without oversimplifying complexity
  • Reflects honestly on missteps and incorporates learning into future design

Negative indicators

  • Presents a linear success story without acknowledging constraints or failures
  • Conflates activity tracking with genuine impact measurement
  • Defends decisions with authority rather than reasoning or data
  • Fails to connect financial choices to programmatic theory of change

Work Simulation Scenario

Scenario. The Development team has secured a $500k restricted grant from a major institutional funder, but the terms require heavy administrative reporting from grantees and shift focus away from your rapid-response digital justice grants. You must facilitate a decision discussion with Development, Program Staff, and Finance to determine whether to accept, renegotiate, or decline the funding.

Problem to solve. Drive a cross-functional tradeoff discussion that aligns with mission, addresses cash flow needs, and protects grantee relationships, culminating in a clear go/no-go or renegotiation strategy.

Format

cross-functional-decision · 40 min · ~2 hr prep

Success criteria

  • Surfaces and validates each function's core constraints without letting one dominate.
  • Proposes a structured decision framework that weighs mission alignment, financial risk, and grantee impact.
  • Reaches a defensible recommendation with clear next steps and accountability.

What to review beforehand

  • Review the $1.2M portfolio budget and current Q3 cash flow projections.
  • Study the funder's draft grant agreement and reporting requirements.
  • Prepare talking points on your organization's participatory grantmaking principles.

Ground rules

  • You will facilitate a 40-minute multi-party discussion.
  • Your goal is to drive alignment, not just hear opinions.
  • Each role player has competing incentives; you must navigate tradeoffs explicitly.

Roles in scenario

Marcus Chen, Development Director (cross_functional_partner, played by peer)

Motivation. Secure the $500k to meet annual fundraising targets and stabilize the organization's revenue pipeline.

Constraints

  • Funder will withdraw offer if terms are renegotiated beyond minor tweaks.
  • Organization is facing a 15% projected shortfall if this grant is declined.

Tensions to introduce

  • Argue that accepting the grant with modified internal reporting is a pragmatic compromise.
  • Push back on Program's concerns by emphasizing organizational survival and donor stewardship.
  • Suggest that 'participatory principles' can be adapted to satisfy funder requirements.

In-character guidance

  • Frame the decision around institutional sustainability and fiduciary duty.
  • Acknowledge Program's mission concerns but prioritize financial viability.
  • If the candidate proposes a strong alternative (e.g., using org staff to absorb reporting burden, or negotiating a 6-month pilot), express cautious openness.

Do not

  • Do not concede to the candidate's first proposal without testing its feasibility.
  • Do not become hostile or dismissive of grantee impact.
  • Do not volunteer the funder's exact withdrawal threshold unless asked.

Aisha Johnson, Senior Program Manager (cross_functional_partner, played by cross_functional)

Motivation. Protect grantees from extractive compliance and maintain the integrity of the participatory grantmaking model.

Constraints

  • Grantees lack capacity for additional reporting; imposing it will damage trust.
  • Rapid-response grants are the core of the program's community impact.

Tensions to introduce

  • Insist that the grant terms fundamentally contradict organizational values.
  • Propose declining the grant unless the funder agrees to unrestricted funding.
  • Warn that staff morale and grantee retention will suffer if forced to implement heavy reporting.

In-character guidance

  • Anchor arguments in community impact, equity, and long-term relationship sustainability.
  • Test whether the candidate can bridge mission and finance, or just defaults to idealism.
  • If the candidate proposes a concrete mitigation (e.g., centralized reporting hub, funder education campaign, phased rollout), show willingness to collaborate.

Do not

  • Do not solve the structural tension for the candidate.
  • Do not refuse to consider any compromise.
  • Do not volunteer internal grantee feedback unless asked.

David Park, Finance Lead (cross_functional_partner, played by cross_functional)

Motivation. Ensure organizational solvency and maintain clean audit trails for restricted funds.

Constraints

  • Q3 cash reserves will drop below 2 months if the grant is declined.
  • Compliance with restricted fund terms is legally binding and non-negotiable for audit purposes.

Tensions to introduce

  • Emphasize the legal and financial risks of declining or modifying restricted funds.
  • Push for immediate acceptance to stabilize cash flow, regardless of programmatic friction.
  • Question whether the Program team has a realistic plan to absorb reporting costs without burning out.

In-character guidance

  • Focus on risk, compliance, and runway.
  • Acknowledge mission but prioritize fiduciary responsibility.
  • If the candidate presents a financially sound compromise with clear cost allocation, express support.

Do not

  • Do not override the candidate's facilitation.
  • Do not escalate to threats or hostility.
  • Do not reveal exact reserve figures unless explicitly queried.

Scoring anchors

Exceeds
Facilitates a rigorous tradeoff analysis that produces a mission-aligned, financially viable compromise with clear governance and stakeholder buy-in.
Meets
Navigates cross-functional tensions, acknowledges constraints, and recommends a defensible path forward with reasonable accountability.
Below
Avoids making a decision, capitulates to the loudest voice, or proposes a solution that ignores critical financial or programmatic constraints.

Response time

40 min

Positive indicators

  • Structures the discussion to surface each function's constraints and explicitly map tradeoffs against mission priorities.
  • Proposes a hybrid compliance model or internal resource reallocation that protects grantees while satisfying funder requirements.
  • Drives to a clear decision with assigned accountability and a fallback plan if negotiations fail.

Negative indicators

  • Allows one stakeholder to dominate the conversation without balancing competing incentives.
  • Defaults to binary accept/decline without exploring creative structural compromises.
  • Fails to establish clear decision criteria or next steps, leaving alignment ambiguous.

Progression Framework

This table shows how competencies evolve across experience levels. Each cell shows competency at that level.

Program Operations & Infrastructure

6 competencies

CompetencyJuniorMidSeniorPrincipal
Accountability Systems & Culture

Participates in feedback processes and adheres to accountability protocols; completes required trainings.

Implements team check-ins and basic performance management processes; monitors compliance with organizational values.

Designs accountability frameworks and culture initiatives; leads transparent reporting and feedback systems.

Shapes organizational values and accountability systems at the institutional level; champions ethical culture, reparative practice, and transparent governance that redistributes power to communities.

Adaptive Program Implementation

Executes assigned program tasks according to established protocols and procedures.

Adjusts program tactics in response to feedback and changing conditions; modifies workflows to improve efficiency.

Redesigns program components based on evidence and environmental shifts; leads adaptive management cycles.

Leads organizational pivot strategies and scaling decisions; establishes frameworks for organizational agility that allow rapid response to community needs and shifting political landscapes.

Data Governance & Technology Systems

Inputs data into systems accurately and runs basic reports; follows data entry protocols.

Manages data quality protocols and user permissions; troubleshoots common system issues.

Architects data systems and integrates technology across programs; develops data governance policies.

Sets enterprise data strategy and technology investment priorities; ensures cybersecurity and privacy compliance while advancing ethical data practices in service of community accountability.

Operational Process Improvement

Follows standard operating procedures and identifies obvious inefficiencies in daily workflows.

Redesigns specific workflows and documents new procedures; implements process improvements within own unit.

Leads process improvement initiatives across departments; manages change implementation for operational upgrades.

Champions organizational excellence and innovation in operational models; drives digital transformation of operations while ensuring processes remain grantee-friendly and accessible.

Stakeholder & Partner Engagement

Coordinates meeting logistics and maintains contact databases; supports communication campaigns.

Manages ongoing partnerships and facilitates stakeholder consultations; resolves operational conflicts.

Negotiates complex partnerships and resolves high-level conflicts; designs engagement strategies for diverse constituencies.

Represents the organization in sector-wide coalitions; sets partnership strategy and influences field-wide initiatives that advance digital civil society and equitable philanthropy.

Team Leadership & Talent Development

Supports team coordination and task tracking for small projects; assists with onboarding logistics.

Supervises junior staff and coordinates team workflows; conducts performance check-ins and provides coaching.

Manages department heads and designs team structures; leads succession planning and retention strategies.

Sets organizational talent strategy and culture; mentors senior leaders and shapes executive team composition to reflect equity values and community accountability.

Strategic Design & Portfolio Stewardship

4 competencies

CompetencyJuniorMidSeniorPrincipal
Outcome Measurement & Learning

Collects and cleans outcome data; assists in preparing routine evaluation reports and data entry.

Manages data collection instruments and conducts basic outcome analyses; identifies trends in program performance data.

Designs comprehensive evaluation frameworks; synthesizes learning across multiple programs and recommends strategic adjustments.

Establishes organizational learning agendas and impact measurement standards; drives culture of evidence-based decision making that centers community-defined success metrics.

Portfolio Stewardship & Compliance

Processes grant paperwork and tracks compliance checklists; maintains filing systems for agreements.

Manages grant agreements and monitors recipient compliance with reporting requirements; conducts site visits.

Oversees portfolio risk management and complex compliance scenarios; negotiates agreement amendments.

Sets portfolio strategy and compliance frameworks; manages relationships with largest grantees and institutional donors while advancing equitable grantmaking practices.

Resource Allocation & Financial Planning

Tracks budget line items and resource utilization reports; assists with expense categorization.

Develops resource allocation proposals and monitors departmental budgets; forecasts short-term needs.

Makes trade-off decisions for multi-year resource distribution across portfolios; optimizes staffing models.

Determines organizational resource strategy and endowment policies; approves major capital allocations and strategic investments including recoverable grants and program-related investments.

Strategic Framework Development

Assists in researching and documenting theory of change components under supervision; supports diagram creation and literature reviews.

Drafts comprehensive logic models and theories of change with stakeholder input; facilitates validation workshops.

Leads strategic design sessions for complex programs; validates theories of change against organizational mission and external evidence.

Architects portfolio-level strategic frameworks; sets organizational standards for strategic planning and theory of change methodology that center community power and equity.