I’ve noticed that candidate-review sites (e.g. Glassdoor) show a surprisingly high share of negative interview feedback for several EA orgs (GiveWell sits around ~40 % “negative” responses), which is higher than what you typically see for reputable private employers (Google, BCG, etc.). My own interviews at these Fortune 100 firms have been demanding but still felt transparent and fair, whereas many reviewers describe EA hiring as opaque:
Is the data misleading, or are EA orgs genuinely struggling to offer a good candidate experience?
If the latter, what are the main frictions (limited HR capacity, specific test exercises, risk averse calibration)?
Which parts of the process could be made more transparent (timelines, criteria, feedback) without compromising the rigor EA values?
Ultimately, how can we make sure EA organizations remain talent magnets rather than inadvertently deterring people who are otherwise keen on high-impact careers?
Curious to hear perspectives from recruiters and anyone who has tried to improve this within their org. Thank you for doing this!
I’ve noticed that candidate-review sites (e.g. Glassdoor) show a surprisingly high share of negative interview feedback for several EA orgs (GiveWell sits around ~40 % “negative” responses), which is higher than what you typically see for reputable private employers (Google, BCG, etc.). My own interviews at these Fortune 100 firms have been demanding but still felt transparent and fair, whereas many reviewers describe EA hiring as opaque:
Curious to hear perspectives from recruiters and anyone who has tried to improve this within their org. Thank you for doing this!