Thanks for these interesting thoughts, I agree with lots of what you say!
A few comments:
I think many organisations do use their network and things like the HIP database to find candidates. People are still often hired directly without public hiring rounds, and semi-private hiring rounds (reaching out directly to people identified in these ways and only inviting those to apply) are also quite common, but still can be very elaborate (significant lower number of applicants so lower effort for the hiring organisation, but still a similar effort for applicants.)
Many organisations believe that hiring the right people is extremely important, and that it is worth the effort to conduct elaborate public hiring rounds, particularly for senior roles, presumably because they think there is a chance of finding a better candidate this way. (Sometimes, even if they have an internal candidate they could promote to the job, they still prefer to do a public hiring round to see if there is someone better out there.) Also, EA orgs have often very high expectations for their roles and sometimes have to readvertise roles even if the first round received lots of applications—so it seems they still feel they are talent-constrained (at least for the level of talent they are looking for).
If was very confused by the sentence “Once someone has beaten the substantial odds and passed the rigorous testing to get in to the movement...” (as their is really not a very high bar to get ’into the movement), but based on the example you mention, I think you more mean something like “once someone has been hired for a permanent full-time role at a top EA organisation” in which case I agree with the problem you are describing. I don’t really see a good solution for this, though. Organisations want to hire the best people they can, whether they are already in the movement or not. However, I think people who are attracted to the movement should be made aware of these cases and that there is no employment guarantee in EA.
1. That’s good. Do you have any thoughts on how often this happens vs open rounds? 2. In my experience, the surplus of applicants is the case regardless of role seniority. I think level of talent is very subjective for soft skills-based roles. In my view, if many people are applying who are able to do the job with decent competence, one cannot call oneself talent-constrained. The jobs themselves don’t seem very technical/in need of very unique factors. 3. Yes, I meant once someone has been hired by an EA organisation. I think prioritising getting the very very best comes at a cost that is difficult to justify if one considers themselves to be cost effective, a central tenet of EA, and is by no means guaranteed/the benefit of the first choice vs the second or even the third, fourth, fifth, is hard to pin down.
Thanks for these interesting thoughts, I agree with lots of what you say!
A few comments:
I think many organisations do use their network and things like the HIP database to find candidates. People are still often hired directly without public hiring rounds, and semi-private hiring rounds (reaching out directly to people identified in these ways and only inviting those to apply) are also quite common, but still can be very elaborate (significant lower number of applicants so lower effort for the hiring organisation, but still a similar effort for applicants.)
Many organisations believe that hiring the right people is extremely important, and that it is worth the effort to conduct elaborate public hiring rounds, particularly for senior roles, presumably because they think there is a chance of finding a better candidate this way. (Sometimes, even if they have an internal candidate they could promote to the job, they still prefer to do a public hiring round to see if there is someone better out there.) Also, EA orgs have often very high expectations for their roles and sometimes have to readvertise roles even if the first round received lots of applications—so it seems they still feel they are talent-constrained (at least for the level of talent they are looking for).
If was very confused by the sentence “Once someone has beaten the substantial odds and passed the rigorous testing to get in to the movement...” (as their is really not a very high bar to get ’into the movement), but based on the example you mention, I think you more mean something like “once someone has been hired for a permanent full-time role at a top EA organisation” in which case I agree with the problem you are describing. I don’t really see a good solution for this, though. Organisations want to hire the best people they can, whether they are already in the movement or not. However, I think people who are attracted to the movement should be made aware of these cases and that there is no employment guarantee in EA.
Hi Aleks, thanks for engaging!
1. That’s good. Do you have any thoughts on how often this happens vs open rounds?
2. In my experience, the surplus of applicants is the case regardless of role seniority. I think level of talent is very subjective for soft skills-based roles. In my view, if many people are applying who are able to do the job with decent competence, one cannot call oneself talent-constrained. The jobs themselves don’t seem very technical/in need of very unique factors.
3. Yes, I meant once someone has been hired by an EA organisation. I think prioritising getting the very very best comes at a cost that is difficult to justify if one considers themselves to be cost effective, a central tenet of EA, and is by no means guaranteed/the benefit of the first choice vs the second or even the third, fourth, fifth, is hard to pin down.