@Anaeli V. 🔹 , the “process history + work test evaluations” described in section IV and, the approach described in @AïdaLahlou's post, are close to a system I recently experienced as a candidate. The application is your resume, and a work test comprised of a scenario you would likely face in the role, plus a short self-recorded video talking through your approach (no cover letter). Shortlisting is driven primarily by test performance, which the platform ranks for the hiring team. Candidates can opt in to letting future employers see their prior tests. Employers can set different tests for different roles. 

One thought after reading Abraham’s note about the potential of an increased volume of applicants. If the entry to the system is just uploading a profile, even with a bit more detail, it is likely more people will sign up for the chance. But in this case, starting with a work test decreased the number of job seekers who completed the full application, even with encouragement to use AI (only 47% submitted the test). Combined with a system doing the initial shortlisting, that might change the cost-benefit analysis. Of course, there is the tension that those who opted out because they won’t do videos or unpaid tests on principle, may have been strong candidates and would have been shortlisted during a normal resume screening. 

I’ve built hiring processes for employers and I’m now being reminded of all the good (and the bad) things that happen as a candidate. I’m happy to share more detail if it’s useful to you, and my anecdotal experience on the correlation between personality tests vs. thinking/values tests vs. work tests and success in the role.  

PS - Thanks to you both for the great posts!

Thanks for sharing your experience, Emily. I just finished the CEA Bootcamp and am beginning my search for operations roles at AI safety and governance organizations. Like some of the others commenting, I've found it hard to reconcile the messaging that more generalist support is urgently needed with the experiences candidates have shared about their efforts to get hired. It seems like there should be a better way for candidates and the hiring organizations to get what each needs. Short-term consultancies could be one way. I wonder if more skills-based approaches could help. Candidates could complete short exercises modeled on the actual work the role involves with their application, beyond the short answer application questions. That gives candidates a portfolio piece regardless of the hiring outcome. And it gives employers a sample of what a candidate can do up front, instead of screening and sometimes interviewing before doing multiple tests or work trials later. Having been a hiring manager before, I understand the value these activities can have. Streamlining the process in some way would benefit all parties and leave more time to focus on the mission. 

I wish you the best of luck in your continued search!