Coefficient’s work hinges on the collective strength and expertise of our team. We’ve thought extensively about how to find people who can contribute to our mission, encourage them to apply, and test their skills.
Below, Recruiting Lead Phil Zealley discusses Coefficient’s approach to recruiting, how we use work tests, and future plans to improve our hiring process.
Generally speaking, how does Coefficient approach the recruitment process?
We believe we can only be as effective as the people we hire, so we invest an unusual amount of effort into sourcing and evaluating candidates. We strive to be rigorous and evidence-based in our decision making without creating unnecessary bureaucracy.
We think our thorough process benefits candidates, not just us — it gives them a better sense of whether they’ll enjoy the role.
What are some ways you make an unusual effort?
We promote jobs widely, including outreach to specific candidates. We also have a $5,000 referral reward for anyone who recommends a candidate we hire, whether or not they work at Coefficient.
Additionally, we manually review every application to ensure we advance the best candidates, and don’t miss someone just because their resume didn’t include a certain keyword.
We also try to be as transparent as possible throughout the hiring process. For example, we make sure that candidates have up-to-date timelines and know which interviews and work tests are still ahead. Proactive updates take more work than only reaching out after each stage concludes, but they’re essential to our outlook; we want people to have positive experiences with our team from the beginning.
Finally, we invest a lot of time to create work tests that reflect the requirements and challenges of the role, so both sides get a signal of whether the role is a good fit.
What role do work tests play in the process?
At most workplaces, the next step after a resume screen is an interview. At Coefficient, the next step is usually a work test, which is compensated with an honorarium — in other words, we pay people for their time. We also grade each test without knowing who took it, to avoid bias.
Recruiting and hiring managers from the candidate’s future team work together to design each test. The tests check for baseline skills like writing or technical knowledge, but also have a range of possible answers so that applicants can showcase their creativity or strategic thinking. If someone does well on a test, that often provides more signal than a traditionally impressive resume or strong interview.
The tests also give applicants a realistic sense of what they’d actually be doing. We’ve had people withdraw after seeing a test, realizing it’s not the kind of work they want. In our opinion, that’s a good thing — better to realize early!
What are the main downsides to this approach?
Our process sometimes requires significant time and effort from candidates and the hiring team. A work test might take five hours, and grading a full round’s worth of tests might take a week. Still, there are situations when we would rather lose someone over time constraints than hire without good information, though we’re working to speed up the process without weakening our ability to identify talent.
Also, it can be harder to assess writing skills nowadays because of large language models. As a result, we’re investing extra effort into designing tests that require skills LLMs can’t easily replicate, like strong judgment in complex situations. We’re also experimenting with new formats that incorporate video or other non-text elements.
What else are you working to improve?
We’re trying to make the process more efficient by thinking critically about questions like who truly needs to meet each candidate and whether it’s possible to combine stages.
We’re also significantly expanding our proactive sourcing efforts. There are many great people who could be excellent hires but have never heard of us, or would never think to work for a philanthropic funder. For example, many econ PhDs — who are likely to be great at cost-effectiveness evaluation — never look for work outside of academia.
What does proactive sourcing look like?
We post on impact-focused job boards and role-specific boards to reach the right audiences. We do direct headhunting on LinkedIn and talent databases, and we maintain a network of well-connected people we ask for recommendations, in addition to our own staff. For more examples of paths people took to reach Coefficient, see this article.
Right now, we have two full-time staff members focused on recruiting applicants from a wider range of backgrounds. One major facet of their work involves looking for candidates from underrepresented regions. In 2025, members of our Recruiting team attended conferences in Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil, and India, delivered five workshops on Coefficient Giving’s mission and operating values to audiences newer to our work, and participated in nine group Q&A events to make our work more accessible to candidates from diverse backgrounds.
Another thing that helps is our expression of interest form, which lets people submit a resume at any time to get on our radar, so we can reach out if a good role comes up. This year alone, we’ve reviewed over 2,500 expression of interest forms.
Do we actually hire people through that form?
Yes! Several current and past employees first got on our radar via the form. We use it to find people we can proactively reach out to — sometimes for an open role, and sometimes just for an exploratory conversation if someone’s background is particularly relevant to our work. Occasionally, we’ve even created new roles for strong candidates.
One important caveat because we can’t guarantee we’ll notice and reach out to everyone: even if you’ve applied through the general interest form, you should still apply to specific roles you’re interested in!