Thank you for this excellent post! I’m a student group organizer & I’ll be recommending this to other members/organizers :)
A few specific thoughts that came up as I read:
Rather than trying to convince the employer that you have to be chosen, you can flip it and concentrate on helping their employer to find the right fit for the position
I love this advice, and I think it can have a special implication for EAs. The question flips from “how can I get this job” to “how can I help this employer make an informed assessment of how impactful I will be at this job”.
A traditional approach to job applications might be something like “I want to impress the interviewer, so I maximize my chance of getting a job offer. Then, I will select the offer that is best for me.”
An EA alternative to this might be something like “I want to be highly transparent with the interviewer, so I maximize the amount of information they have when determining who would be most impactful for this role. Then, I will compare my options and consider which one generates the most counterfactual impact [alongside other considerations like personal fit].”
Try and think of the main concerns of the potential employer about your candidacy and use your application to reassure them that the risk of these concerns is low.
With this “transparency frame” in mind, I’m not sure how I feel about this point. I think this line suggests that people should optimize for “reassuring employers that you are a good hire.” I would rather have people optimize for “being transparent and providing information that helps employers assess whether or not you are a good hire.”
As a result, I would be inclined to encourage people to explicitly state their key uncertainties about taking the role & be upfront about potential weaknesses/doubts. (Of course, this is assuming someone is reasonably well-calibrated about their skills/aptitudes. For people who underestimate themselves, this advice would backfire).
I also think this is easier said than done—optimizing for transparency inherently means that you might reduce your odds of getting the job. I’d guess that the tradeoff generally isn’t super high, though, and it’s also quite plausible to me that EA employers would be enthusiastic about people who are upfront with their weaknesses/doubts. It could also help them recommend the applicant for a role that’s more suited to their particular aptitudes.
What do you think? (I could be very wrong about this, and I’ve never been in a hiring role!)
Hey Akash, thanks so much for reading and also for your thoughts. I love that you connected the “helping” bit with EA principles—I don’t think I thought of that! So this is a really valuable point. After all, we are trying to make an impact with our jobs and by applying for a job, we are trying to solve a problem for the organisation and the cause area in general. Also many thanks for sharing this with your network, I hope it will help more people!
I agree with you about transparency, we definitely shouldn’t say anything that’s not true about our candidacy and shouldn’t hire any facts that make us a bad fit. And you are also right in saying that this can backfire, especially for non-EA ogs and for people with impostor syndrome (most of us haha). I can think of underepresented groups not getting roles as, generally, men are more likely to be overconfident about their ability.
I would say that the key here is to treat each application individually, try to see exactly what the hiring manager is looking for, and start by presenting yourself in the best possible light. Put your best foot forward!
If you’re absolutely sure that you don’t have a particular skill, I think it’s possible to be transparent and also talk about any skill/aptitude gap in a positive way. I think a lot of EA orgs will hire for potential and attitude, so phrasing things like “I haven’t done this yet, however, I’d really like to learn in/I have learnt things really quickly in the past/done something very similar”. That is if you genuinely like to do it.
Another way to talk positively about skill gaps is flipping it and finding why not having this skill will give you an advantage (fresh eyes, ability to form the way you operate in this org etc.).
So what I’m trying to say is, having been on the hiring manager’s side,”I can’t do this” shows that the person doesn’t want to learn or isn’t right for the job. I would much rather hear “I’ve never done it but I’m just so excited to learn”.
Additionally, many orgs now offer trial tasks, so before you say “I am not good at strategy”, if it’s a core skill and it is tested, I would first see if you can do the trial task. Sometimes we appear to be good at something we’ve never done! So I wouldn’t speak so soon until you try it :)
Thank you for this excellent post! I’m a student group organizer & I’ll be recommending this to other members/organizers :)
A few specific thoughts that came up as I read:
I love this advice, and I think it can have a special implication for EAs. The question flips from “how can I get this job” to “how can I help this employer make an informed assessment of how impactful I will be at this job”.
A traditional approach to job applications might be something like “I want to impress the interviewer, so I maximize my chance of getting a job offer. Then, I will select the offer that is best for me.”
An EA alternative to this might be something like “I want to be highly transparent with the interviewer, so I maximize the amount of information they have when determining who would be most impactful for this role. Then, I will compare my options and consider which one generates the most counterfactual impact [alongside other considerations like personal fit].”
With this “transparency frame” in mind, I’m not sure how I feel about this point. I think this line suggests that people should optimize for “reassuring employers that you are a good hire.” I would rather have people optimize for “being transparent and providing information that helps employers assess whether or not you are a good hire.”
As a result, I would be inclined to encourage people to explicitly state their key uncertainties about taking the role & be upfront about potential weaknesses/doubts. (Of course, this is assuming someone is reasonably well-calibrated about their skills/aptitudes. For people who underestimate themselves, this advice would backfire).
I also think this is easier said than done—optimizing for transparency inherently means that you might reduce your odds of getting the job. I’d guess that the tradeoff generally isn’t super high, though, and it’s also quite plausible to me that EA employers would be enthusiastic about people who are upfront with their weaknesses/doubts. It could also help them recommend the applicant for a role that’s more suited to their particular aptitudes.
What do you think? (I could be very wrong about this, and I’ve never been in a hiring role!)
Hey Akash, thanks so much for reading and also for your thoughts. I love that you connected the “helping” bit with EA principles—I don’t think I thought of that! So this is a really valuable point. After all, we are trying to make an impact with our jobs and by applying for a job, we are trying to solve a problem for the organisation and the cause area in general. Also many thanks for sharing this with your network, I hope it will help more people!
I agree with you about transparency, we definitely shouldn’t say anything that’s not true about our candidacy and shouldn’t hire any facts that make us a bad fit. And you are also right in saying that this can backfire, especially for non-EA ogs and for people with impostor syndrome (most of us haha). I can think of underepresented groups not getting roles as, generally, men are more likely to be overconfident about their ability.
I would say that the key here is to treat each application individually, try to see exactly what the hiring manager is looking for, and start by presenting yourself in the best possible light. Put your best foot forward!
If you’re absolutely sure that you don’t have a particular skill, I think it’s possible to be transparent and also talk about any skill/aptitude gap in a positive way. I think a lot of EA orgs will hire for potential and attitude, so phrasing things like “I haven’t done this yet, however, I’d really like to learn in/I have learnt things really quickly in the past/done something very similar”. That is if you genuinely like to do it.
Another way to talk positively about skill gaps is flipping it and finding why not having this skill will give you an advantage (fresh eyes, ability to form the way you operate in this org etc.).
So what I’m trying to say is, having been on the hiring manager’s side,”I can’t do this” shows that the person doesn’t want to learn or isn’t right for the job. I would much rather hear “I’ve never done it but I’m just so excited to learn”.
Additionally, many orgs now offer trial tasks, so before you say “I am not good at strategy”, if it’s a core skill and it is tested, I would first see if you can do the trial task. Sometimes we appear to be good at something we’ve never done! So I wouldn’t speak so soon until you try it :)