Thanks for writing this up Michelle! I would be excited for you to write more things like this in the future. Regarding this:
The more similar to mine someone’s situation is, the more likely they’ll be able to recommend resources tailored to me
A common observation[1] is that firms retain older employees but rarely hire them. One explanation for this is that organization-specific knowledge (what acronyms mean, how you make a project plan, etc.) is valuable, but general-purpose skills aren’t as valuable, so there’s no point in recruiting someone who has 30 years of experience from your competitor. (Or, alternatively: too few people actually learn valuable general-purpose skills for this to show up in the data.)
This roughly seems correct to me, anecdotally.
To the extent that this is accurate in EA, it might imply that EA-specific communication norms or other EA-specific things are the most valuable to train.
An additional hobbyhorse of mine is that certification might be more valuable than training. Having a mentor who can teach you things is nice, but it might actually be more valuable for these skilled and trusted mentors to evaluate people’s existing abilities and then credibly certify them.
One explanation for this is that organization-specific knowledge … is valuable, but general-purpose skills aren’t as valuable
I’ve also heard the explanation that firms are strongly incentivized to teach organization-specific knowledge but not general-purpose skills, because the former increases employee efficacy in the organization but the latter makes them more hirable at other organizations.
This is obviously theoretically true but I haven’t seen the literature on the effect size/am unclear how big an issue this is in practice.
Thanks for writing this up Michelle! I would be excited for you to write more things like this in the future. Regarding this:
A common observation[1] is that firms retain older employees but rarely hire them. One explanation for this is that organization-specific knowledge (what acronyms mean, how you make a project plan, etc.) is valuable, but general-purpose skills aren’t as valuable, so there’s no point in recruiting someone who has 30 years of experience from your competitor. (Or, alternatively: too few people actually learn valuable general-purpose skills for this to show up in the data.)
This roughly seems correct to me, anecdotally.
To the extent that this is accurate in EA, it might imply that EA-specific communication norms or other EA-specific things are the most valuable to train.
An additional hobbyhorse of mine is that certification might be more valuable than training. Having a mentor who can teach you things is nice, but it might actually be more valuable for these skilled and trusted mentors to evaluate people’s existing abilities and then credibly certify them.
See e.g. Are older workers overpaid? A literature review: “Theories emphasizing specific human capital are able to explain why firms employ older workers but hardly ever hire them.”
I’ve also heard the explanation that firms are strongly incentivized to teach organization-specific knowledge but not general-purpose skills, because the former increases employee efficacy in the organization but the latter makes them more hirable at other organizations.
This is obviously theoretically true but I haven’t seen the literature on the effect size/am unclear how big an issue this is in practice.