The Nonlinear Library EA - Why you might be getting rejected from (junior) operations jobs by Eli Nathan
Apr 7, 2024
05:22
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why you might be getting rejected from (junior) operations jobs, published by Eli Nathan on April 7, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
Most recruiters aren't likely to give candidates feedback, partially due to the volume of candidates, and many people repeatedly get rejected from jobs and do not know why.
Below I list some common reasons I expect candidates might get rejected from (generally junior) ops-type jobs.[1] Similar principles might apply to other role types, though I can't really speak to these. I'm listing these reasons in no particular order.[2]
1. Quality of writing
The writing quality in your application materials should be extremely high. This is partially because you're competing against candidates with strong writing skills, but also because:
Good writing quality is often a strong signal of conscientiousness, attention to detail, and other traits that are important in most ops jobs.
Many ops roles simply require you to write a lot, often to important stakeholders or to large audiences - clear and concise writing quality will be important in these cases.
I expect a lot of people overrate their professional writing skills (I certainly used to). This isn't something people tend to get explicitly trained on and it requires different skills than you might learn in a literature class - a focus on language being clear and concise rather than emotive or descriptive.
2. Quality of work tests
This is perhaps obvious and unhelpful, but your work tests should be completed to a very high standard. The strongest candidates will be paying attention to the smallest details, so you'll need to as well.
In many ops roles you'll need to present polished work every now and then - to senior stakeholders, colleagues, or the wider public. Work tests are often a way to see if you can perform at this level, even if less-than-perfect work would be good enough for your day-to-day tasks.
You should probably be intensely checking your work tests before you submit them, perhaps by aiming to finish in 80-90% of the allotted time, and using the remainder to go over your work. If the work test is writing-based, you may even want to consider reading it aloud and seeing if it flows well and makes sense.
3. Quality of application materials
I think this generally matters less than the two points above, but I'd make sure your CV, LinkedIn, and cover letters are as polished as possible and clearly outline experience that's relevant for the role you're applying for. Again, this includes things like writing and formatting quality. You should also probably be asking someone to review your CV - I've asked family members to do this in the past.
This is a more specific point, but I also notice that a lot of people's CVs are too vague. "I am the president of my EA group" can mean anything, the bar for founding an EA group is ~zero, and I expect many EA groups to be inactive. But being president of your EA group can also mean a lot: perhaps you run lots of workshops (give quantities and details) and get large amounts of funding.
But if you don't tell the hiring manager this they won't know, and they're unlikely to spend extra time investigating.
In a similar vein, I've noticed that some people's EA Global applications (a process similar-ish to hiring) mention that they've founded Organisation X, only for its website to contain minimal information. To be clear, Organisation X may be a very impressive and accomplished project! But you should assume that the hiring manager is not familiar with it and will not spend much time investigating.
It's often best to briefly explain what your organisation does, how many people work there and what your responsibilities are.
4. Unclearly relevant experience or interests
Hiring managers are often looking for certain types of candidates. Even if you're very ...
Most recruiters aren't likely to give candidates feedback, partially due to the volume of candidates, and many people repeatedly get rejected from jobs and do not know why.
Below I list some common reasons I expect candidates might get rejected from (generally junior) ops-type jobs.[1] Similar principles might apply to other role types, though I can't really speak to these. I'm listing these reasons in no particular order.[2]
1. Quality of writing
The writing quality in your application materials should be extremely high. This is partially because you're competing against candidates with strong writing skills, but also because:
Good writing quality is often a strong signal of conscientiousness, attention to detail, and other traits that are important in most ops jobs.
Many ops roles simply require you to write a lot, often to important stakeholders or to large audiences - clear and concise writing quality will be important in these cases.
I expect a lot of people overrate their professional writing skills (I certainly used to). This isn't something people tend to get explicitly trained on and it requires different skills than you might learn in a literature class - a focus on language being clear and concise rather than emotive or descriptive.
2. Quality of work tests
This is perhaps obvious and unhelpful, but your work tests should be completed to a very high standard. The strongest candidates will be paying attention to the smallest details, so you'll need to as well.
In many ops roles you'll need to present polished work every now and then - to senior stakeholders, colleagues, or the wider public. Work tests are often a way to see if you can perform at this level, even if less-than-perfect work would be good enough for your day-to-day tasks.
You should probably be intensely checking your work tests before you submit them, perhaps by aiming to finish in 80-90% of the allotted time, and using the remainder to go over your work. If the work test is writing-based, you may even want to consider reading it aloud and seeing if it flows well and makes sense.
3. Quality of application materials
I think this generally matters less than the two points above, but I'd make sure your CV, LinkedIn, and cover letters are as polished as possible and clearly outline experience that's relevant for the role you're applying for. Again, this includes things like writing and formatting quality. You should also probably be asking someone to review your CV - I've asked family members to do this in the past.
This is a more specific point, but I also notice that a lot of people's CVs are too vague. "I am the president of my EA group" can mean anything, the bar for founding an EA group is ~zero, and I expect many EA groups to be inactive. But being president of your EA group can also mean a lot: perhaps you run lots of workshops (give quantities and details) and get large amounts of funding.
But if you don't tell the hiring manager this they won't know, and they're unlikely to spend extra time investigating.
In a similar vein, I've noticed that some people's EA Global applications (a process similar-ish to hiring) mention that they've founded Organisation X, only for its website to contain minimal information. To be clear, Organisation X may be a very impressive and accomplished project! But you should assume that the hiring manager is not familiar with it and will not spend much time investigating.
It's often best to briefly explain what your organisation does, how many people work there and what your responsibilities are.
4. Unclearly relevant experience or interests
Hiring managers are often looking for certain types of candidates. Even if you're very ...