(all opinions my own, in this and other threads on this post).
Do people generally think there’s greater marginal value in starting EA consultancies than in established EA orgs?
If any of the readers a) believe this and b) work in an established EA org, one obvious way to get more consultancies going is to leave your existing org to start a competitor to RP.
Because you’re a “known quantity” (having already been vetted etc), this means you and whoever you hire are more trustworthy and will be given the benefit of a doubt for startup funding, initial projects, etc.
To the extent that it’s easier to scale consultancies than the structures of established EA orgs, this will also mean we can better leverage EA talent.
If anyone’s thinking seriously about doing as Linch suggests and would like to talk about the nuts and bolts of consulting, feel free to get in touch. I’ve been consulting independently for four years and am happy to share what I know/discuss potential collaborations.
The problem I’m trying to solve (at the top of the post) is that (non-consultancy) EA organizations like Open Phil, for a variety of reasons, can’t hire the talent we need to accomplish everything we’d like to accomplish. So when we do manage to hire someone into a specific role, I think their work in that role can be highly valuable, and if they’re performing well in that role after the first ~year then my hunch is they should stay in that role for at least a few years. That said, we’ve had staff leave and become a grantee/similar instead, and I could imagine some staff leaving to become an EA consultant at some point if they think they can accomplish more good that way and/or if they think that’s a better fit for them personally.
Hmm I think the main reason to start a consultancy is for scalability, since for whatever reasons existing orgs can’t hire fast while maintaining quality.
I do think value of time is unusually high at Open Phil compared to the majority of other EA orgs I’m aware of, which points against people leaving Open Phil specifically.
Another option is if you’re an established consultant/independent researcher within the EA sphere and you want to leverage this to start a consultancy group.
(all opinions my own, in this and other threads on this post).
Do people generally think there’s greater marginal value in starting EA consultancies than in established EA orgs?
If any of the readers a) believe this and b) work in an established EA org, one obvious way to get more consultancies going is to leave your existing org to start a competitor to RP.
Because you’re a “known quantity” (having already been vetted etc), this means you and whoever you hire are more trustworthy and will be given the benefit of a doubt for startup funding, initial projects, etc.
To the extent that it’s easier to scale consultancies than the structures of established EA orgs, this will also mean we can better leverage EA talent.
If anyone’s thinking seriously about doing as Linch suggests and would like to talk about the nuts and bolts of consulting, feel free to get in touch. I’ve been consulting independently for four years and am happy to share what I know/discuss potential collaborations.
I’d love to talk to you about this! Sent you a DM
The problem I’m trying to solve (at the top of the post) is that (non-consultancy) EA organizations like Open Phil, for a variety of reasons, can’t hire the talent we need to accomplish everything we’d like to accomplish. So when we do manage to hire someone into a specific role, I think their work in that role can be highly valuable, and if they’re performing well in that role after the first ~year then my hunch is they should stay in that role for at least a few years. That said, we’ve had staff leave and become a grantee/similar instead, and I could imagine some staff leaving to become an EA consultant at some point if they think they can accomplish more good that way and/or if they think that’s a better fit for them personally.
Hmm I think the main reason to start a consultancy is for scalability, since for whatever reasons existing orgs can’t hire fast while maintaining quality.
I do think value of time is unusually high at Open Phil compared to the majority of other EA orgs I’m aware of, which points against people leaving Open Phil specifically.
Another option is if you’re an established consultant/independent researcher within the EA sphere and you want to leverage this to start a consultancy group.