If you were applying to Open Philanthropy as a candidate, what would be the parts of the hiring process that would cause you the must frustration/annoyance (alternatively: what would be the pain points)? What parts of the hiring process would you come away thinking “Open Philanthropy does that really well” afterwards?
We gather data on these topics through post-round candidate surveys, so I can share what candidates actually say rather than speculate!
On the frustration / annoyance side:
The most common thing that comes up is that we don’t share personalized feedback with unsuccessful candidates except for those who make it to the final stage of the process. This is a tricky problem that we’ve discussed a lot, as it’s not feasible for us to do this given the large number of candidates who apply. We’re trying to provide more generalized feedback on our work tests for certain roles as one possible improvement.
Another thing that comes up is that our processes can be fairly long (often 2-3 months from when a candidate applies). We try to speed this up where possible but have to trade that off against having a large number of data points from work trials and interviews, which we also see as valuable.
On the ‘OP does that really well’ side:
Candidates often praise the transparency of our process and what we’re looking for at each stage.
Candidates usually enjoy their interactions with OP staff—we do our best to make most conversations a two-way street, and are less intimidating than I think some people imagine!
If you were applying to Open Philanthropy as a candidate, what would be the parts of the hiring process that would cause you the must frustration/annoyance (alternatively: what would be the pain points)? What parts of the hiring process would you come away thinking “Open Philanthropy does that really well” afterwards?
We gather data on these topics through post-round candidate surveys, so I can share what candidates actually say rather than speculate!
On the frustration / annoyance side:
The most common thing that comes up is that we don’t share personalized feedback with unsuccessful candidates except for those who make it to the final stage of the process. This is a tricky problem that we’ve discussed a lot, as it’s not feasible for us to do this given the large number of candidates who apply. We’re trying to provide more generalized feedback on our work tests for certain roles as one possible improvement.
Another thing that comes up is that our processes can be fairly long (often 2-3 months from when a candidate applies). We try to speed this up where possible but have to trade that off against having a large number of data points from work trials and interviews, which we also see as valuable.
On the ‘OP does that really well’ side:
Candidates often praise the transparency of our process and what we’re looking for at each stage.
Candidates usually enjoy their interactions with OP staff—we do our best to make most conversations a two-way street, and are less intimidating than I think some people imagine!