The above article, too, contains many questionable pieces of advice. Just one example: ‘Craft your questions so that it’s not embarrassing or difficult for candidates to admit that they don’t have the personal qualities that you are looking for.’ So you’re supposed to rely on candidates admitting that they are not right for the job? Take the article’s example of risk-taking – why wouldn’t you write in the job ad that risk-taking is required? Then the honest non-risk-takers can sort themselves out before going through the trouble of applying.
What about those who don’t sort themselves out? According to the article, you ask them a sort of trick question: ‘are you somebody who likes to jump head first into a problem or do you hold more of the philosophy of looking before you leap?’ This can work if you’ve successfully left the candidate in the dark on whether the job requires risk-taking. If the candidate knows that risk-taking is required and really wants the job (and who doesn’t?), guess which of the two alternatives they will pick.
Addendum – a better question to find out about a candidate’s risk-taking. Say: ‘It’s hard to have a big impact without taking risks. Tell me about a time when you had to choose between a safe and a risky course of action. What were your considerations, how did you implement your choice and how did it turn out?’ After they’ve given an answer, probe. Ask follow-up questions. Always about the past. If all you dig up is more details about successful risk-taking in the past, there’s a good chance the candidate fulfills your risk-taking requirement. On the other hand, if they don’t have done much risk-taking, you will find out quickly using this course of questioning. This is not to say that you should turn your desk lamp on them and play a Stalin-era interrogator. All the points about being extremely friendly and putting the candidate at ease still apply.
Note to those who are downvoting this: Please describe your disagreements in a comment. Otherwise nobody can learn from them.
<First sentence redacted.>
The above article, too, contains many questionable pieces of advice. Just one example: ‘Craft your questions so that it’s not embarrassing or difficult for candidates to admit that they don’t have the personal qualities that you are looking for.’ So you’re supposed to rely on candidates admitting that they are not right for the job? Take the article’s example of risk-taking – why wouldn’t you write in the job ad that risk-taking is required? Then the honest non-risk-takers can sort themselves out before going through the trouble of applying.
What about those who don’t sort themselves out? According to the article, you ask them a sort of trick question: ‘are you somebody who likes to jump head first into a problem or do you hold more of the philosophy of looking before you leap?’ This can work if you’ve successfully left the candidate in the dark on whether the job requires risk-taking. If the candidate knows that risk-taking is required and really wants the job (and who doesn’t?), guess which of the two alternatives they will pick.
Talking about going through the trouble of applying – the above article doesn’t address the feedback about hiring that made a splash on this forum a while ago: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jmbP9rwXncfa32seH/after-one-year-of-applying-for-ea-jobs-it-is-really-really I don’t agree with the attitude of the latter article, but it does contain important points that ‘an EA Guide to Hiring’ would do well to address.
Addendum – a better question to find out about a candidate’s risk-taking. Say: ‘It’s hard to have a big impact without taking risks. Tell me about a time when you had to choose between a safe and a risky course of action. What were your considerations, how did you implement your choice and how did it turn out?’ After they’ve given an answer, probe. Ask follow-up questions. Always about the past. If all you dig up is more details about successful risk-taking in the past, there’s a good chance the candidate fulfills your risk-taking requirement. On the other hand, if they don’t have done much risk-taking, you will find out quickly using this course of questioning. This is not to say that you should turn your desk lamp on them and play a Stalin-era interrogator. All the points about being extremely friendly and putting the candidate at ease still apply.
Note to those who are downvoting this: Please describe your disagreements in a comment. Otherwise nobody can learn from them.