How do we evaluate applications at GrowthX?

Do not index

CTA Headline

CTA Description

CTA Button Link

I am a law only for my kind, I am no law for all.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

There are various definitions of a holistic assessment. Still, almost all of them agree that, at its core, it’s about getting as much information as possible to the reviewer/curator about what an applicant is bringing to the community. If implemented appropriately, it can support a fair, inclusive, and incremental process that helps identify applicants who effectively meet mutual outcomes, needs, and goals.

What are rubrics?

A rubric is commonly defined as a tool that articulates the expectations for an assignment/assessment by listing criteria and describing each criterion's level of quality. It's too hard to understand, we know—let’s simplify this.

We call ours the SER rubric.

S - Significant Contribution E - Empathy R - Resourcefulness

Why are we checking for these broadly?

We’ve identified ‌this pattern - positive communities result from extremely empathetic people trying to help each other. Plus, resourcefulness is a core trait for anyone building a compounding career - ask any leader you've ever worked with. A significant contribution is a direct signal for us to understand if you would act on the knowledge/connections you will earn once you are inside the community.

How are we checking for these?

We have a simple application form that allows us to measure the relevancy of the outcomes our applicants want to achieve and the impact GrowthX can have on them. This means we do not accept applicants for whom we can’t give an extremely high ROI, period. Next, we invite applicants to a jamming session. This slightly higher commitment action helps us gauge whether we attract only the highest-intent applicants. The jamming session is designed to emulate how a boardroom at a product organization would solve a growth problem. Applicants are given a problem statement and some relevant information about the problem statement. They are then advised to use the internet and build their own diagnosis of the problem. Along with the membership team, the applicants jam on the problem, trying to reach an experiment/solution. We finally cool down with a short round of getting to know what they do in their personal lives, anything they feel comfortable sharing.

The format allows us to measure —

Behavior in a peer-led situation (core to the community)

Approach to problem-solving in a professional setup (analytical ability)

Interest in solving ANY growth problem for ANY product (curiosity)

Resourcefulness when they are given less time to research, diagnose, and build an experiment - which is generally the case for any business decision

Willingness to share/collaborate with peers

Choice of words, candor, presence on a professional call

Here’s what the GrowthX rubric table looks like —

Component	Significant Contribution	Empathy	Resourcefulness
First degree	Provides a statistically significant perspective to the conversation	Non-defensive attitude	Adding value by listening carefully to others’ points
ㅤ	Backing up someone else with relevant data	Cognisant of others’ time	Effective time management
ㅤ	Influences the conversation	Zoom call etiquette	Asking questions to clarify
ㅤ	Influences the conversation multiple times	Mindful of other peers’ contributions	Asking the right questions about the problem
ㅤ	Providing an incremental point to the conversation	Beginners mindset	Structured thought process with clear problem identification
ㅤ	Providing a statistically significant contrary perspective to the conversation	Willingness to collaborate	ㅤ
Second degree	Quality of point mentioned vs time used	Being open to disagreements	Being able to give pros and cons to experiments
ㅤ	Sharing their knowledge with other participants	self-awareness	Finding data quickly
ㅤ	Structured thought process with clear problem identification	ㅤ	Clarity in Assumptions vs Reality
Third degree	Originality	Cons & blockers for experiments/solutions	listening intently and providing value to their peers
ㅤ	Relevant answer to the section	listening intently and providing value to their peers	Finding relevant data
ㅤ	Jargon less conversation	The tone of voice while arguing or rebuttal	ㅤ
ㅤ	ㅤ	Patience	ㅤ
ㅤ	ㅤ	Calmness	ㅤ
Max points	7	7	7

Points table that we use for the rubric

Component	Maximum points	Point values
Significant Contribution	7	5 - If it’s a primary Root cause identified of the problem statement, backed up with data, 4 - If it’s secondary root cause identified of the problem statement, backed up with data 2-3 - If it’s a primary/secondary/tertiary Root cause of the problem statement 1-2 - Not a root cause but an industry problem 0 - Not a relevant answer to the discussion 1-2 extra points for examples, and mentioned in the time given to them without using any jargon -1,2 points for not making any relevant points even after taking time, or rephrase the problem statement
Empathy	7	4-5 - Willingness to collaborate, user understanding, peer understanding, perfect choice of words and tone, humble, not repeating others’ points, 2-3 - User understanding, peer understanding, cognizant of others time 0-1- Willingness to collaborate, 1-2 extra points for zoom etiquette, videos on, mics on only while speaking, patient, self-awareness, -1,2 points for being aggressive, argumentative, not giving others time, not appreciating others’ points, and not following any ground rules
Resourcefulness	7	4-5 - Relevant data in the time provided, asking relevant questions to the problem, 2-3 - Clarity in assumptions vs reality 0-1 - Listening actively 1-2 extra points for being able to listen to peers and understand a problem not being explored, data that needs to be found based on ad-hoc, explaining a structure to approach problem-solving that has worked for them -1,2 points for mentioning wrong data, or factually wrong inferences, quoting just from an article without truth-seeking
Total	21	16-21 - Strong fit 11-15 - Good fit 8-10 - Probable fit 5-8 - Probable deny 0-4 - Waitlist

Once the jamming session is over, the membership team spends 1-2 hours discussing each applicant, outcomes, and jamming session performance before making a final decision. This process allows us to better understand our applicants and who we think would be the right fit for the community.

How do we evaluate applications?