So, I managed to make it through the second-round interview on Saturday. How did it go, you ask? I felt pretty confident once I left that I really nailed it. Strangely (for me), I was in a good conversational groove and teeing off questions and observations. I even had them laughing at one point as I told them the gripping tale of errant authors and a process I had to mediate and problem solve. And it ended happily, on time, and on budget! In short, I think I had a narrative that I reinforced and that was compelling.
I'm not sure I had good answers to specific questions, though. I wish I could go back and re-do/re-frame/re-address. I think I missed a couple of really easy lobs that would have underscored my broader skill set. It's much easier to give a litany of accomplishments that directly transfer to the job in question, rather than having to elide gaps and contextualize things in ways not immediately obvious. I think it will come down to the mix of skills and traits that they value for this--I have a sneaking suspicion that all the candidates involve trade-offs and that none of us are an exact 100 percent fit.
It's funny. I went into it fairly ambivalent. It seemed, in many ways, like a recipe for failure for the person in the job (you better show concrete results), as well as for the organization (hey! we'll save money by getting a person who will learn as they go!). But I got really excited after meeting the people and thinking about the challenges involved in such a new direction. God help me if I'm not a wee bit energized by people, sometimes. It could be a fascinating to have to be persuasive.
We'll see. The decision is out of my hands.