Hi Jeff, here is CE's Conflicts of Interest policy. We're still waiting for a couple of pieces of advice to come through so the text will likely change and we'll post an updated version. In saying that, there likely won't be wholesale changes. 

Hi there. As promised, here is CE's Conflicts of Interest policy. We're still waiting for a couple of pieces of advice to come through so the text will likely change and we'll post an updated version. In saying that, there likely won't be wholesale changes.  

Hi Ofer, apologies for the delay. We're doing one final round of review and will be publishing it very soon. I will send you a link as soon as it's published. 

Thank you Jeff for the post. I’m Alex, Director of Operations at Charity Entrepreneurship. We have a COI policy in our staff handbook, but you're right to say that our COI policy isn't public at the moment, so thank you for the nudge. Recent events made us think that we could take this opportunity to review our policy and potentially strengthen it even more, particularly by comparing it to others’ policies in this post. We will take a look and can commit to publishing it on our website before the end of the month. 

One question others in the community might be wondering is the extent to which the inquiry will require connected organisations and/or projects to provide information to the Commission. Will the Commission ask anyone outside of EVF UK to provide information and/or documents (e.g. grantees)? Should people let you know if such a request has been made? Questions like that. I suspect you don't have answers to these yet, so I'm sure it's something that will be answered in due course. 

Wanted to also quickly recognise the mammoth effort that yourself and also EV Ops will likely need to put in in the coming months. I also haven't experienced such an inquiry, but I suspect it's a lot of work. All the best!

I commend you on your moral leadership and I join everyone else in the comments in expressing gratitude for the tremendous good you've done so far. However, I'm curious about your decision to resign. I get the moral justification, but surely there are many grantees with many questions who'd be able to get better answers were you still within Future Fund. Something as simple as access to documents or previous emails would enable you to better support grantees who are likely in significant distress. Why did you see it as imperative to resign effective immediately? Why not at the very least see out your notice period? 

At least one person has gotten word from them that these payouts are on hold for now. This seems very worrisome and suggests the legal structure of the fund is not as robust or isolated as you might have thought.

If it turns out that committed funds were not liquid, that the legal structure wasn't robust, and that grants promised won't be honoured, that won't just be 'really bad' - it will be egregious. 

Not an answer, just wanting to say thank you for asking this question! The same question had been percolating in my mind for some time but couldn't quite put it into words, and you did so perfectly. Thank you!

Brilliant post. I have been reading about and dabbling in evidence-led HR for some time, and on my to-do list was writing this exact post for the forum (although I suspect mine would've likely been of a significantly lower quality, so I'm not mad at all that you beat me to it) 

How can an organization effectively use intelligence tests & personality tests in hiring, while avoiding/minimizing legal risks? I know that many are rubbish, but are they all varying degrees of rubbish, or are some of them noticeably better than the rest? How good is Wonderlic? The gap between this can help you select better applicants and here are the details of how to implement this seem fairly large. What research has been done in the recent two decades?

I didn't see you cite it, but I assume you've come across Schmidt's 2016 update to his '85 years' paper? See here. 

I do think that such a quiz should be used with caution, as it can make the hiring process feel fairly impersonal for the applicant. Depending on what population you want to recruit from, some applicants may strongly prefer human contact rather than to use a quiz, so much then when prompted to do the quiz they choose to drop out of the application process.

I wasn't aware of that China-specific example you outline in the footnote, so it's a nice reminder that cross-cultural considerations are important and often surprising. However,  that aside,  in general I sense that it's a win-win if applicants drop out of the process because they don't like the initial quiz-based filtering process. Self-selection of this kind saves time on both ends. While candidates might think it impersonal, I have a strong prior against using that as a reason to change the initial screening to something less predictive like CV screening.  

perhaps I'll find answers to some of these questions during the coming months as I continue to work my way through my to-read list

Would be curious to see this list, for my own purposes :)

For some jobs, it is easy to create work sample tests, but for a lot of knowledge work jobs it is hard to think up what a good work sample test could be. I'd love to see some kind of a work sample test example book, in which example work samples for many different jobs are written out. Does something like this exist?

How to create good structured interviews? The gap between this is more effective than unstructured interviews and here are the details of how to implement this seem fairly large. Are there resources that go more in-depth than re:Work?

I often hear people asking for resources like this. Like you, I suspect that the significant effort investment required in closing the implementation gap is what keeps some people form implementing more predictive selection methods. 

I'm not sure what your MO is, but I'd be keen to collaborate on future posts you're thinking of writing or even putting together some resources for the EA community on some of the above (e.g. example work samples, index of General Mental Ability tests, etc). Won't be offended if you prefer to work solo; we can always stay in touch to ensure we're not both going to publish the same thing at the same time :)