Thanks for this post, Dan. I work in headhunting for EA orgs, so please read these comments with that in mind!
I’d echo Ozzie’s comment on transparency, and I’d want orgs to push back on me if they think what I’m doing is overstepping the mark into something like ‘aggressive persuasion’.
(Naturally) I don’t see my role like that, and whilst I wouldn’t claim that I perfectly calculate the global impact of every potential job switch when considering reaching out to someone, nor is it a simple case of following a short-term financial incentive. Even from a purely selfish headhunter’s perspective, I don’t think a strategy of heavy convincing in order to fill a role would be productive in anything but the very short term.
I certainly consider the downsides for the potential losing employer if that employer’s an EA or adjacent org. This is especially so if they haven’t been there long, and/​or would be making a sideways move rather than advancing their career.
That said, I wouldn’t want to rule out approaching employees of EA or adjacent orgs, to include extolling the virtues of the hiring org as I understand them. That sort of ‘convincing’ seems legitimate to me. As Habryka points out, people are capable of considering offers and incentives hiring organisations and headhunters might have, and host orgs are capable of counter-convincing.
So it seems to me that the key issue is what counts as legitimate or otherwise—obviously deception is wrong, but I’m not sure it’s easy to draw the line between ‘providing information’ and ‘convincing’. Do you have specific suggestions? I want to make sure I get this right, so would be keen to discuss with you—my email is tom@activesearch.org.
FWIW, I agree that it’s better to hire from outside of EA where possible, and I’m especially excited about bringing more mid-career talent into the community from ‘outside’. What makes this difficult is that hiring managers often want to see evidence of ‘value alignment’ or ‘cultural fit’, one proxy for which is often ‘working at an EA/​adjacent org’. EA-specific knowledge can also be helpful in a lot of roles. People already connected to this space are also much likelier to understand and be motivated to work on the weird causes that EA orgs pursue.
Thanks again for your post, and I look forward to hearing from you if you’d like to discuss further.
Thanks for this post, Dan. I work in headhunting for EA orgs, so please read these comments with that in mind!
I’d echo Ozzie’s comment on transparency, and I’d want orgs to push back on me if they think what I’m doing is overstepping the mark into something like ‘aggressive persuasion’.
(Naturally) I don’t see my role like that, and whilst I wouldn’t claim that I perfectly calculate the global impact of every potential job switch when considering reaching out to someone, nor is it a simple case of following a short-term financial incentive. Even from a purely selfish headhunter’s perspective, I don’t think a strategy of heavy convincing in order to fill a role would be productive in anything but the very short term.
I certainly consider the downsides for the potential losing employer if that employer’s an EA or adjacent org. This is especially so if they haven’t been there long, and/​or would be making a sideways move rather than advancing their career.
That said, I wouldn’t want to rule out approaching employees of EA or adjacent orgs, to include extolling the virtues of the hiring org as I understand them. That sort of ‘convincing’ seems legitimate to me. As Habryka points out, people are capable of considering offers and incentives hiring organisations and headhunters might have, and host orgs are capable of counter-convincing.
So it seems to me that the key issue is what counts as legitimate or otherwise—obviously deception is wrong, but I’m not sure it’s easy to draw the line between ‘providing information’ and ‘convincing’. Do you have specific suggestions? I want to make sure I get this right, so would be keen to discuss with you—my email is tom@activesearch.org.
FWIW, I agree that it’s better to hire from outside of EA where possible, and I’m especially excited about bringing more mid-career talent into the community from ‘outside’. What makes this difficult is that hiring managers often want to see evidence of ‘value alignment’ or ‘cultural fit’, one proxy for which is often ‘working at an EA/​adjacent org’. EA-specific knowledge can also be helpful in a lot of roles. People already connected to this space are also much likelier to understand and be motivated to work on the weird causes that EA orgs pursue.
Thanks again for your post, and I look forward to hearing from you if you’d like to discuss further.
I haven’t come across any headhunters for EA orgs before. What % of people you approach would you say work for an EA-affiliated org already?