EA recruitment: less effective than government?

In this post you will hear about my experience looking for a job within EA/ AI risks organizations. If you are yourself looking to switch, you may have had a similar experience. If you are not, buckle up, this will be an interesting ride!

But first, allow me to briefly tell you a real story that is the background for the annectode-sounding title of this post. When sharing my experience with another individual in the EA community, I found out that, after months of looking for a job within EA, long processes and nothing concrete as a result, they gave up on working within EA, and ended up taking a job at a government agency. In their words, the recruitment process for that job was faster, less complex and still successful. Hearing from other job-seekers within EA, I found out that my experience, and that of this person, is not unique.

So what is happening here? Is EA over-engineering recruitment? 

Now for my experience applying for EA/ AI risks organizations. Allow me to categorize the issue into three main points:

• Lengthy processes that keep stretching further
• Absence of feedback
• The illusion of networking/ referrals

Lengthy processes that keep stretching further

Job descriptions often mention that a certain role is there to "respond to immediate needs". During interviews, I have often heard that this role will lighten the load for team members that are currently working above 100% of their capacity, and that there is definitely work waiting for the person joining within this role.

Simultaneously, I have been a part of recruitment processes where interviews and work tests took multiple weeks to be reviewed. In some cases this was indicated right away, "we will get back to you in the next 3 weeks" (just for one step of the process), in other cases, I have received weekly emails indicating that the team has been "busier than expected" and that they need another week/ 2 weeks... In some cases I heard nothing at all and had to keep sending emails to ask for updates.

I think anyone can see the chicken and the egg here: the team is too busy to pick up the recruitment process, and therefore the team remains too small to have the capacity to pick up the recruitment process. But let me challenge that by asking: is there maybe an issue of priorities? 

Absence of feedback

EA prides itself on being fact-based, believing in feedback as a path to growth.

I do too. Which is why I prefer my rejections to come with (at least some) feedback. I understand this choice when this is at initial application stage. If I apply for a job, along with hundreds of others, and from my CV and cover letter/ application questions that specific feedback would be burdensome and lengthy. Those I can accept without much thought.

A very different case is when you have had multiple interviews and work tests, waited for weeks for feedback and still received a completely impersonal pre-written email about how "after careful review, the organization decided not to move forward with your application at this time" and that they are "unable to provide feedback on individual applications".

I do have an opinion here.

I have no doubt that after interviewing a candidate and assessing work tests, an organization, especially within EA, will have a document summarizing all the points that led them to make a decision. I don't need complete phrases written in a polite way. Your notes are fine. I don't want to fight your decision. I want to know what I can learn from this to apply in other job applications. And you have the information, so why not share it? 

The illusion of networking/ referrals

If you have been in contact with any EA organization focusing on mentoring, if you have attended any session on job seeking within EA, read materials or watched videos on the topic, you will have heard it: networking is the way.

I believed it too. I have invested time and brain capacity subscribing to talent directories, preparing for and having one on one's with people working at organizations that I find interesting and would potentially later like to join.

But my experience has made me doubt its effectiveness.

I have been contacted directly by organizations that I had previously spoken to, or that "got my name from X" and that "have a role that could make sense for me". Following those contacts, I had meetings in which everything seemed to make sense for both parties, which were followed by the note that "as such, we strongly encourage you to apply to this position". A position which is now online for the entire world to apply as well. In some cases those organizations then moved on to outsource the hiring process, while still "being really interested in receiving my application". Is this then an effective use of resources? Isn't the time spent by team members within one on one's a potentially questionable investment, if the only result is to encourage applications from people that were already interested enough to reach out, and would probably then apply regardless?

Final note

With all of this, after 15 mindfully prepared applications, 7 job interviews, 14 hours of work tests, a lot of waiting, multiple rejections and exactly 0 feedback, I am finally considering that a job in EA/ AI risks may not be in my future. I do hope that by sharing my experience I can start a discussion onto how recruitment is seen and treated within this community. To other job seekers: you are not alone! 

A final reminder to organizations: bear in mind that your speed and feedback can help job seekers who, like you, want to be Effective, and in the future maybe consider the idea of applying Altruism also towards job applicants.