% of roles filled through applications: Can’t speak for all orgs, but at GiveWell a substantial majority of roles are filled through applications. We’ve previously made a small number of opportunistic hires, but not recently.
reasons hires didn’t work out: By policy, my org just doesn’t share detailed commentary on this sort of thing in any venue, even in most internal settings. But, I think the big-picture reasons for most staff departures at my org are fundamentally quite normal (growth opportunities, personal/family life demands, performance issues, etc.). When relevant, we use performance data to reassess our calibration on past hiring rounds and make changes for future rounds.
Related question: How often do you run a public open hiring round and end up hiring someone already on your radar, who would have been part of your closed hiring round as well?
Not saying this is always bad, the public hiring round might still have been worthwhile in expectation, I’m just curious how often these things happen. Probably various a lot between roles & orgs.
Rarely.* If we think we have a good shot of hiring someone through a closed hiring round, we typically wouldn’t open a public round. I think the only exception to this would be a situation where we’re inventing a new role that’s relatively unique to GiveWell. In cases like that, we might have one or more potential internal candidates, but we’ll likely feel uncalibrated on what strong candidates look like because we lack comparators for the role. So, we might still launch a public round so that we can obtain more comparators and avoid missing strong external talent.
What % of roles are filled with applications vs other methods (what are the other methods?)
What are some reasons hires did not work out and how did that affect the hiring process?
Hey Richard :)
% of roles filled through applications: Can’t speak for all orgs, but at GiveWell a substantial majority of roles are filled through applications. We’ve previously made a small number of opportunistic hires, but not recently.
reasons hires didn’t work out: By policy, my org just doesn’t share detailed commentary on this sort of thing in any venue, even in most internal settings. But, I think the big-picture reasons for most staff departures at my org are fundamentally quite normal (growth opportunities, personal/family life demands, performance issues, etc.). When relevant, we use performance data to reassess our calibration on past hiring rounds and make changes for future rounds.
Thank you.
Related question: How often do you run a public open hiring round and end up hiring someone already on your radar, who would have been part of your closed hiring round as well?
Not saying this is always bad, the public hiring round might still have been worthwhile in expectation, I’m just curious how often these things happen. Probably various a lot between roles & orgs.
Rarely.* If we think we have a good shot of hiring someone through a closed hiring round, we typically wouldn’t open a public round. I think the only exception to this would be a situation where we’re inventing a new role that’s relatively unique to GiveWell. In cases like that, we might have one or more potential internal candidates, but we’ll likely feel uncalibrated on what strong candidates look like because we lack comparators for the role. So, we might still launch a public round so that we can obtain more comparators and avoid missing strong external talent.
*can’t speak for all orgs