This made for a very interesting read, thank you very much and there are lots of good points here.
It’s a five-year old post now so not expecting a reply and some ideas/implementation will have changed, but from what I see, you proposed looking at: 1) 8 weeks for the advertisement of the job, upping it from 2 weeks
2) Ideally a 4-week work trial, upping it from 1-week
The process as you had it took 2 months from start to finish (with a 2 week advertisement and a 1 week work trial). That means that, at minimum, your proposals would last an additional 9 weeks (probably even longer given you’d have to sift through more candidates but keeping it conservative, at minimum 9 weeks).
If the job were advertised on e.g. 1st February, then candidates couldn’t expect a result for 17 weeks, ie. roughly mid-June for the successful candidates.
At the same time, you seem to be expecting candidates to partake in a 4-week trial where, in this case at least, there was a 50% chance of not getting the job (2/4 received offers) - it’s hard to see who this could possibly apply to, other than a very small number of people who are unemployed and privileged enough not to need to find a job ASAP (or would look at applying to a job in February and not need to have found a job before mid-June). I’m not sure what other group could accept this timeline other than semi-retired or retired people interested in going back into the workforce.
For most people, it seems you’d be expecting them to quit their job (very few companies would let employees take 4 weeks out to potentially work at another company and then quit) for a 50⁄50 chance of getting employment. You note that maybe candidates could have the option of doing a 1-week or a 4-week trial, but those who could only do a week (which in itself is very difficult for employed people to do) would surely be at a disadvantage, with far less time to prove themselves or be as visible as those who do 4 weeks.
I completely get that it’s vital for EA organisations to hire exceptional people and that hiring needs to be rigorous; I really like the concept of work trials (they work well for both sides provided they’re compensated fairly), but it’s hard to see how your proposed timeline would work for anyone other than a very small number of privileged people who, for whatever reason, don’t have to work. I’d really like to see EA organisations being more respectful of candidates’ timelines and mindful of how proposals need to balance finding the right candidate while also being mindful of a) inclusivity b) fairness to candidates c) efficient. 17 weeks from opening the ad to sending out offers, including 1-4 week work trials, doesn’t seem to hit the right balance to me.
This made for a very interesting read, thank you very much and there are lots of good points here.
It’s a five-year old post now so not expecting a reply and some ideas/implementation will have changed, but from what I see, you proposed looking at:
1) 8 weeks for the advertisement of the job, upping it from 2 weeks
2) Ideally a 4-week work trial, upping it from 1-week
The process as you had it took 2 months from start to finish (with a 2 week advertisement and a 1 week work trial). That means that, at minimum, your proposals would last an additional 9 weeks (probably even longer given you’d have to sift through more candidates but keeping it conservative, at minimum 9 weeks).
If the job were advertised on e.g. 1st February, then candidates couldn’t expect a result for 17 weeks, ie. roughly mid-June for the successful candidates.
At the same time, you seem to be expecting candidates to partake in a 4-week trial where, in this case at least, there was a 50% chance of not getting the job (2/4 received offers) - it’s hard to see who this could possibly apply to, other than a very small number of people who are unemployed and privileged enough not to need to find a job ASAP (or would look at applying to a job in February and not need to have found a job before mid-June). I’m not sure what other group could accept this timeline other than semi-retired or retired people interested in going back into the workforce.
For most people, it seems you’d be expecting them to quit their job (very few companies would let employees take 4 weeks out to potentially work at another company and then quit) for a 50⁄50 chance of getting employment. You note that maybe candidates could have the option of doing a 1-week or a 4-week trial, but those who could only do a week (which in itself is very difficult for employed people to do) would surely be at a disadvantage, with far less time to prove themselves or be as visible as those who do 4 weeks.
I completely get that it’s vital for EA organisations to hire exceptional people and that hiring needs to be rigorous; I really like the concept of work trials (they work well for both sides provided they’re compensated fairly), but it’s hard to see how your proposed timeline would work for anyone other than a very small number of privileged people who, for whatever reason, don’t have to work. I’d really like to see EA organisations being more respectful of candidates’ timelines and mindful of how proposals need to balance finding the right candidate while also being mindful of a) inclusivity b) fairness to candidates c) efficient. 17 weeks from opening the ad to sending out offers, including 1-4 week work trials, doesn’t seem to hit the right balance to me.