Strong messaging to the effect of “we need talent” gives the impression that there are enough jobs that if you are reasonably skilled, you can get a job.
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need founders”, or “just apply for funding” gives the impression that you will get funding.
In both cases, people can be repeatedly rejected and get extremely disheartened.
Some things that can be done:
Communicate (with real examples?) the level of competence required for success in a job / funding application. Unfortunately “apply but don’t get sad at rejection” is an unrealistic message to send. Go the other way, and try to make people’s self-screening more accurate.
Provide better feedback for rejected applicants.
Provide more opportunities for up-skilling.
Try really, really hard not to filter based on unchangeable parts of people’s background such as their education (esp. fanciness of school) and location. (and of course ethnicity, gender etc.)
I’ve been meaning to write a post but it’s a big ball of thoughts and I don’t have the right structure for it.
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need talent” gives the impression that there are enough jobs that if you are reasonably skilled, you can get a job.
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need founders”, or “just apply for funding” gives the impression that you will get funding.
I’m a bit confused, because this doesn’t seem to match the scenario described in the OP that you quoted. My summary of that scenario would be:
An EA org paid the OP to work for them as a contractor;
The org then invited them to apply for an open position for a similar role;
They didn’t get the position (presumably because the org found another candidate they thought would be better?).
I have a lot of sympathy for the OP in this scenario, and expect it was a very painful and disheartening experience. I definitely cringe a bit when I read it. But it doesn’t seem to me like anyone did anything wrong here—it just seems like the kind of unfortunate-but-unavoidable situation that comes up all the time in the workplace. But you’re saying this is “harmful” and that orgs need to “do a lot better”, which suggests that you disagree?
I was kind of off-topic and responding to something a bit more general. Since writing my comment I have found someone on the forum summarizing my perspective better.
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need talent” gives the impression that there are enough jobs that if you are reasonably skilled, you can get a job.
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need founders”, or “just apply for funding” gives the impression that you will get funding.
In both cases, people can be repeatedly rejected and get extremely disheartened.
Some things that can be done:
Communicate (with real examples?) the level of competence required for success in a job / funding application. Unfortunately “apply but don’t get sad at rejection” is an unrealistic message to send. Go the other way, and try to make people’s self-screening more accurate.
Provide better feedback for rejected applicants.
Provide more opportunities for up-skilling.
Try really, really hard not to filter based on unchangeable parts of people’s background such as their education (esp. fanciness of school) and location. (and of course ethnicity, gender etc.)
I’ve been meaning to write a post but it’s a big ball of thoughts and I don’t have the right structure for it.
I’m a bit confused, because this doesn’t seem to match the scenario described in the OP that you quoted. My summary of that scenario would be:
An EA org paid the OP to work for them as a contractor;
The org then invited them to apply for an open position for a similar role;
They didn’t get the position (presumably because the org found another candidate they thought would be better?).
I have a lot of sympathy for the OP in this scenario, and expect it was a very painful and disheartening experience. I definitely cringe a bit when I read it. But it doesn’t seem to me like anyone did anything wrong here—it just seems like the kind of unfortunate-but-unavoidable situation that comes up all the time in the workplace. But you’re saying this is “harmful” and that orgs need to “do a lot better”, which suggests that you disagree?
Ok—this is a good critique of my comment.
I was kind of off-topic and responding to something a bit more general. Since writing my comment I have found someone on the forum summarizing my perspective better.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsTXHJFu3Srurbg7K/leftism-virtue-cafe-s-shortform?commentId=mdhfHBe3k5wvqXfo2
and relatedly re. funding
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsTXHJFu3Srurbg7K/leftism-virtue-cafe-s-shortform?commentId=eW8zdL2MiXsgNPgMa