I can see that this does not feel great from a nepotism angle. However, as Weaver mentions the initial application is only a very rough pre-screening, and for that, a recommendation might tip the scales (and that might be fine).
Reasons why this is not a problem:
First, expanding on Weavers argument:
I think that the short hand of āthis person vouches for this other personā is a good enough basis for a lot of pre-screening criteria. Not that it makes the person a shoe in for the job, but itās enough to say that you can go by on a referral.
If the application process is similar to other jobs in the EA world, it will probably involve 2-4 work trials, 1-2 interviews, and potentially an on-site work trial before the final offer is made. The reference maybe gets an applicant over the hurdle of the first written application, but wonāt be a factor in the evaluation of the work trials and interviews. So it really does not influence their chances too much.
Secondly, speaking of how I update on referrals: I donāt think most referrals are super strong endorsements by the person referring, and one should not update on them too much. I.e. most referrals are not of the type āI have thought about this for a couple of hours, worked with the person a lot in the last year, and think they will be an excellent fit for this roleā, but rather āI had a chat with this person, or I know them from somewhere and thought they might have a 5%-10% chance of getting the job so I recommended they applyā.
Other reasons why this could be bad: 1. The hiring manager might be slightly biased and keep them in the process longer than they ought to (However, I do not think this would be enough to turn a ānot above the bar for hiringā person into the ātop three candidateā person). Note that this is also bad for the applicant as they will spend more time on the application process than they should.
2. The applicant might rely too much on the name they put down, and half-ass the rest of the application, but in case the hiring manager does not know the reference, they might be rejected, although their non-half-assed application would have been good.
I can see that this does not feel great from a nepotism angle. However, as Weaver mentions the initial application is only a very rough pre-screening, and for that, a recommendation might tip the scales (and that might be fine).
Reasons why this is not a problem:
First, expanding on Weavers argument:
If the application process is similar to other jobs in the EA world, it will probably involve 2-4 work trials, 1-2 interviews, and potentially an on-site work trial before the final offer is made. The reference maybe gets an applicant over the hurdle of the first written application, but wonāt be a factor in the evaluation of the work trials and interviews. So it really does not influence their chances too much.
Secondly, speaking of how I update on referrals: I donāt think most referrals are super strong endorsements by the person referring, and one should not update on them too much. I.e. most referrals are not of the type āI have thought about this for a couple of hours, worked with the person a lot in the last year, and think they will be an excellent fit for this roleā, but rather āI had a chat with this person, or I know them from somewhere and thought they might have a 5%-10% chance of getting the job so I recommended they applyā.
Other reasons why this could be bad:
1. The hiring manager might be slightly biased and keep them in the process longer than they ought to (However, I do not think this would be enough to turn a ānot above the bar for hiringā person into the ātop three candidateā person). Note that this is also bad for the applicant as they will spend more time on the application process than they should.
2. The applicant might rely too much on the name they put down, and half-ass the rest of the application, but in case the hiring manager does not know the reference, they might be rejected, although their non-half-assed application would have been good.