Develop a norm against long-term EA projects and long-term employment in EA
That doesn’t seem like a good norm to me.
If the cash transfers were guaranteed for a lifetime, the motivation to make smart decisions is less
That’s not analogous. Individuals and organisations aren’t guaranteed continued employment/funding—it’s conditional on performance. And given continued performance, I don’t think there should be a term limit. I think that would threaten to destroy useful projects. Likewise, it would mean that experienced, valuable staff couldn’t continue at their org.
Prima facie, the norm against long-term projects and employment sounds quite ‘effectiveness/efficiency-decreasing’ but it may just be a bias based on limited experience with this option.
Long-term projects, if that is meant as funding renewal security, are not the norm in EA. Funding is renewed periodically, based on the most competitive opportunities at any time. Any lower marginal costs of established projects’ unit output is taken into account in funding new and existing ones.
Long-term paid employment security is greater than that of projects. Organizations may prefer applicants who are willing to work for the org for a considerable time. This can be because the returns of training for that org and relationship-development aspect of some roles.
A scheme where orgs cooperate in both skills training and relationship development can expedite innovation (skills can complement each other) and improve decisionmakers’ experiences (they are trusted in resolving problems based on various insights rather than one-sidedly ‘lobbied’ to make specific decisions).
Non-EA orgs should also be involved, for the development of general skills that could be a suboptimal use of EA-related orgs’ time to train and of relationships that can be necessary for some EA-related projects.
Individuals and organisations aren’t guaranteed continued employment/funding—it’s conditional on performance.
It’s conditional on the appearance of performance, which is something else entirely.
For example, academics making a discovery are incentivised to slowly release the results over multiple papers, where it would clearly be much better for the community if the results to be published quickly in a single paper. However, in the first case, there is more appearance of performance.
I think that would threaten to destroy useful projects. Likewise, it would mean that experienced, valuable staff couldn’t continue at their org.
I think this argument would have more merit if there weren’t already many organisations that do have term limits and have not been destroyed. In many countries, despite having regular performance reviews (elections), even the highest executive positions are subject to term limits.
That doesn’t seem like a good norm to me.
That’s not analogous. Individuals and organisations aren’t guaranteed continued employment/funding—it’s conditional on performance. And given continued performance, I don’t think there should be a term limit. I think that would threaten to destroy useful projects. Likewise, it would mean that experienced, valuable staff couldn’t continue at their org.
Prima facie, the norm against long-term projects and employment sounds quite ‘effectiveness/efficiency-decreasing’ but it may just be a bias based on limited experience with this option.
Long-term projects, if that is meant as funding renewal security, are not the norm in EA. Funding is renewed periodically, based on the most competitive opportunities at any time. Any lower marginal costs of established projects’ unit output is taken into account in funding new and existing ones.
Long-term paid employment security is greater than that of projects. Organizations may prefer applicants who are willing to work for the org for a considerable time. This can be because the returns of training for that org and relationship-development aspect of some roles.
A scheme where orgs cooperate in both skills training and relationship development can expedite innovation (skills can complement each other) and improve decisionmakers’ experiences (they are trusted in resolving problems based on various insights rather than one-sidedly ‘lobbied’ to make specific decisions).
Non-EA orgs should also be involved, for the development of general skills that could be a suboptimal use of EA-related orgs’ time to train and of relationships that can be necessary for some EA-related projects.
It’s conditional on the appearance of performance, which is something else entirely.
For example, academics making a discovery are incentivised to slowly release the results over multiple papers, where it would clearly be much better for the community if the results to be published quickly in a single paper. However, in the first case, there is more appearance of performance.
I think this argument would have more merit if there weren’t already many organisations that do have term limits and have not been destroyed. In many countries, despite having regular performance reviews (elections), even the highest executive positions are subject to term limits.