The Board is the glaring and obvious problem here. Several members are fixtures and highly entitled but sorely lack EQ and business savvy. There are no term limits and serious boundary issues. The board members I interviewed with set the stage for a terrible candidate experience; they were territorial, cold, difficult, hostile. It felt incredibly disrespectful, especially for a position at a high level. It all revealed so much, and I drove away completely rid of any desire for a third interview. Several employee reviews on this site reflect similar issues. But the problem is not just the handful of insecure board members who obviously had insisted they were adorned with hiring power for this role; the full board is culpable here. A board is responsible for itself. In other words, the more reasonable board members who know they should be asserting themselves, or calling out the problematic behavior, or stepping up to do this work because they are better suited to interview candidates professionally, are equally to blame. Just because you want to own a task, or want to head up a subcommittee, doesn't mean you have the skills to do it. Ironically, strong ownership can be a clue that the party should not be granted the task. Do better, Workhouse. Overhaul your board and put checks in place. The fact that someone interviewing for a COO role would post these comments, a candidate who has served in several leadership roles and who has held many board positions as well, is remarkably sad. You're actively pushing away talent. Your cultural and fiscal problems mirror your deep instability.