I definitely agree with that. But on the other hand, refusing to pay someone who’s good idea didn’t work out and ‘have impact’ for no fault of their own also seems exploitative!
I think people who are using this type of work as a living should get paid a salary with benefits and severance. A project to project lifestyle doesn’t seem conducive to focusing on impact.
But on the other hand, refusing to pay someone who’s good idea didn’t work out and ‘have impact’ for no fault of their own also seems exploitative!
Letting the person running the project take all the risk, might not be optimal, but I would also say it is not exploitative as long as they know this from the start.
I’m not yet sure if I think the amount of money should be 100% based on actual impact, or if we also want to reward people for project that had high expected impact but low actual impact. The main argument for focusing on actual impact is that it is less objective.
I think people who are using this type of work as a living should get paid a salary with benefits and severance. A project to project lifestyle doesn’t seem conducive to focusing on impact.
Um, I was going to argue with this. But actually I think you are right.
Something like: “We like what you have done so far, so we will hire you to keep doing good things based on your own best judgment.”
I think people who are using this type of work as a living should get paid a salary with benefits and severance. A project to project lifestyle doesn’t seem conducive to focusing on impact.
Agreed. In my brief experience with academic consulting one thing I’ve realised is that it is really quite reasonable for contracted consultants to charge a 50-100% premium (on top of their utilisation ratio—usually 50%, so another x2 markup) to account for their lack of benefits.
So if somebody is expecting to earn a ‘fair’ salary from impact purchases compared to employment (or from any other type of short-term contract work really) they should expect a funder to pay premium for this compared to employing them (or funding another organisation to do so) - this doesn’t seem like a good use of funds in the long-term if it is possible to employee that person.
I definitely agree with that. But on the other hand, refusing to pay someone who’s good idea didn’t work out and ‘have impact’ for no fault of their own also seems exploitative!
I think people who are using this type of work as a living should get paid a salary with benefits and severance. A project to project lifestyle doesn’t seem conducive to focusing on impact.
Letting the person running the project take all the risk, might not be optimal, but I would also say it is not exploitative as long as they know this from the start.
I’m not yet sure if I think the amount of money should be 100% based on actual impact, or if we also want to reward people for project that had high expected impact but low actual impact. The main argument for focusing on actual impact is that it is less objective.
Um, I was going to argue with this. But actually I think you are right.
Something like: “We like what you have done so far, so we will hire you to keep doing good things based on your own best judgment.”
Agreed. In my brief experience with academic consulting one thing I’ve realised is that it is really quite reasonable for contracted consultants to charge a 50-100% premium (on top of their utilisation ratio—usually 50%, so another x2 markup) to account for their lack of benefits.
So if somebody is expecting to earn a ‘fair’ salary from impact purchases compared to employment (or from any other type of short-term contract work really) they should expect a funder to pay premium for this compared to employing them (or funding another organisation to do so) - this doesn’t seem like a good use of funds in the long-term if it is possible to employee that person.