The average value to an organization of theirmost preferred over their second most preferred candidate, in a typical hiring round, was estimated to be $50,737 (junior hire) and $455,278 (senior hire).
People considering earning to give can always ask this question to the recruiters instead of relying on the values above, as there is significant variation across roles and organisations.
The average value to the community of a person with equivalent expected lifetime value to an organization’s typical hire joining the community was estimated to be $2,037,500 (junior) and $7,308,333 (senior). This suggests that the value of recruiting ‘hire-level’ EAs to the community is estimated to be extremely high.
This bullet plus the other I quoted above suggest typical junior and senior hires have lifetimes of 40.2 (= 2.04*10^6/(50.7*10^3)) and 16.1 roles (= 7.31*10^6/(455*10^3)), which are unreasonably long. For 3 working-years per junior hire, and 10 working-years per senior hire, they would correspond to working at junior level for 121 years (= 40.2*3), and at senior level for 161 years (= 16.1*10).
This bullet plus the other I quoted above suggest typical junior and senior hires have lifetimes of 40.2 (= 2.04*10^6/(50.7*10^3)) and 16.1 roles (= 7.31*10^6/(455*10^3)), which are unreasonably long. For 3 working-years per junior hire, and 10 working-years per senior hire, they would correspond to working at junior level for 121 years (= 40.2*3), and at senior level for 161 years (= 16.1*10).
We took a different approach to this here, where we looked at the ratio between the value people assigned to a role being filled at all and the value of a person joining the community, rather than the value of the first vs second most preferred hire.
If we look at those numbers, we only get a ratio of ~5 (for both junior and senior hires), i.e. however valuable people think a role being filled is, they think the value of getting a ‘hire-level’ person to the community is approximately 5x this.
This seems more in line with the number of additional roles that we might imagine a typical hire goes onto after being hired for their first role. That said, people might also have been imagining (i) that people’s value produced increases (perhaps dramatically) after their first role, (ii) that people create value for the community outside the roles they’re hired to.
Thanks for pointing that out, David! Excluding a few senior roles, I guess the typical counterfactual is hiring another candidate who is less qualified. So I think the respondents are overestimating the value of expanding the talent pool relative to increasing funding.
Great work, David and Willem!
People considering earning to give can always ask this question to the recruiters instead of relying on the values above, as there is significant variation across roles and organisations.
This bullet plus the other I quoted above suggest typical junior and senior hires have lifetimes of 40.2 (= 2.04*10^6/(50.7*10^3)) and 16.1 roles (= 7.31*10^6/(455*10^3)), which are unreasonably long. For 3 working-years per junior hire, and 10 working-years per senior hire, they would correspond to working at junior level for 121 years (= 40.2*3), and at senior level for 161 years (= 16.1*10).
Thanks Vasco!
We took a different approach to this here, where we looked at the ratio between the value people assigned to a role being filled at all and the value of a person joining the community, rather than the value of the first vs second most preferred hire.
If we look at those numbers, we only get a ratio of ~5 (for both junior and senior hires), i.e. however valuable people think a role being filled is, they think the value of getting a ‘hire-level’ person to the community is approximately 5x this.
This seems more in line with the number of additional roles that we might imagine a typical hire goes onto after being hired for their first role. That said, people might also have been imagining (i) that people’s value produced increases (perhaps dramatically) after their first role, (ii) that people create value for the community outside the roles they’re hired to.
Thanks for pointing that out, David! Excluding a few senior roles, I guess the typical counterfactual is hiring another candidate who is less qualified. So I think the respondents are overestimating the value of expanding the talent pool relative to increasing funding.