I appreciate your examples of how ‘attitude’ can be assessed at each stage of the application process.
I’d be interested to hear perspectives from hiring managers or people ops in the space, especially in orgs that are scaling and where sub-optimal attitudes have wider implications on organisational culture and- ultimately- impact.
I wonder, William, what factors you think would incentivise or disincentive an org to integrate/test some of these ideas during a next hiring round?
I’d imagine the key disincentive would be resource scarcity; the usual barrier to change in organisations. Resource will be needed both to redesign the process and to implement. My very limited experience of EA recruitment—frequently taking 1-2 weeks to respond to an email, missing stated feedback dates, not receiving any notification at all and finding when chasing they went with someone else—is that there seems to be significant under capacity and scope for capability maturity.
My – admittedly commercial and thus possibly rather cynical—experience with incentives is that unless these are instituted at a leadership level then change seldom trickles down. Until recruitment quality and candidate feedback KPIs are hard-baked into a leadership scorecard / goals, resources won’t be re-allocated to the overworked recruiters / outsource providers, and the process won’t be updated. While there appears to be an oversupply of candidates for roles—which appears to be the current situation in EA—and attitudinal fit isn’t causing significant performance issues, there’s no real incentive to change the status quo other than good intentions.
I appreciate your examples of how ‘attitude’ can be assessed at each stage of the application process.
I’d be interested to hear perspectives from hiring managers or people ops in the space, especially in orgs that are scaling and where sub-optimal attitudes have wider implications on organisational culture and- ultimately- impact.
I wonder, William, what factors you think would incentivise or disincentive an org to integrate/test some of these ideas during a next hiring round?
I’d imagine the key disincentive would be resource scarcity; the usual barrier to change in organisations. Resource will be needed both to redesign the process and to implement. My very limited experience of EA recruitment—frequently taking 1-2 weeks to respond to an email, missing stated feedback dates, not receiving any notification at all and finding when chasing they went with someone else—is that there seems to be significant under capacity and scope for capability maturity.
My – admittedly commercial and thus possibly rather cynical—experience with incentives is that unless these are instituted at a leadership level then change seldom trickles down. Until recruitment quality and candidate feedback KPIs are hard-baked into a leadership scorecard / goals, resources won’t be re-allocated to the overworked recruiters / outsource providers, and the process won’t be updated. While there appears to be an oversupply of candidates for roles—which appears to be the current situation in EA—and attitudinal fit isn’t causing significant performance issues, there’s no real incentive to change the status quo other than good intentions.