It does seem like orgs want to simply maximise the number of applicants. I’m putting forward that this isn’t cost-effective.
I think there should be a soft rule that recommending someone to apply = shortlisting them to the interview/work test stage automatically. There should be some benefit to being encouraged to apply.
I don’t believe that the 5–10x differential holds at all, especially not for soft skills like comms, fundraising, and programs. If it did, I would agree with you. But how do you quantify what 5–10x looks like for a marketing manager, for example, ahead of time? What if the real value difference is actually a fraction of 1%, and you’ve gone and spent an extra 20k on a hiring round completely unnecessarily, when the number two candidate was already known to you?
Pay is pay, but yes, I strongly agree that applicant numbers, and then numbers at each stage, should be available on request. I often don’t get a reply when I ask about this, unfortunately.
Whether or not you should expect success depends on all sorts of things. If you’re brand new to the movement and applying for your first role, expectations should be low. However, this is a different point to the main thrust of my post, which is: why are orgs running expensive hiring rounds when the talent is already queuing up, out the door, into the stratosphere? I don’t think that’s cost-effective, but I want to know what others think on that question.
Hey, thanks for writing!
It does seem like orgs want to simply maximise the number of applicants. I’m putting forward that this isn’t cost-effective.
I think there should be a soft rule that recommending someone to apply = shortlisting them to the interview/work test stage automatically. There should be some benefit to being encouraged to apply.
I don’t believe that the 5–10x differential holds at all, especially not for soft skills like comms, fundraising, and programs. If it did, I would agree with you. But how do you quantify what 5–10x looks like for a marketing manager, for example, ahead of time? What if the real value difference is actually a fraction of 1%, and you’ve gone and spent an extra 20k on a hiring round completely unnecessarily, when the number two candidate was already known to you?
Pay is pay, but yes, I strongly agree that applicant numbers, and then numbers at each stage, should be available on request. I often don’t get a reply when I ask about this, unfortunately.
Whether or not you should expect success depends on all sorts of things. If you’re brand new to the movement and applying for your first role, expectations should be low. However, this is a different point to the main thrust of my post, which is: why are orgs running expensive hiring rounds when the talent is already queuing up, out the door, into the stratosphere? I don’t think that’s cost-effective, but I want to know what others think on that question.