I think I’m skeptical of my own impact in ops roles, but it seems likely that senior roles are harder to hire for generally, which might generally mean taking one could be more impactful (if you’re good at it).
I think many other “doer” careers that aren’t ops are very impactful in expectation — in particular founding new organizations (if done well or in an important and neglected area). I also think work like being a programs staff member at a non-research org is very much in the “doer” direction, and could be higher impact than ops or many research roles.
Also, I think our views as expressed here aren’t exactly opposite — I think my work in ops has had relatively little impact ex post, but that’s slightly different than thinking ops careers won’t have impact in expectation (though I think I lean fairly heavily in that direction too, just due to the number of qualified candidates for many ops roles).
Overall, I suspect Peter and I don’t disagree a ton (though haven’t talked with him about it) on any of this, and I agree with his overall assertion (more people should consider “doer” careers over research careers), I think I just also think that more people should consider earning to give over any direct work.
Also, Peter hires for tons of research roles, and I hire for tons of ops roles, so maybe this is also just us having siloed perspectives on the spaces we work in?
Is there a proposed/proven way of coordinating on the prioritization?
Without a good feedback loop I can imagine the majority of the people just jump on the same path which could then run into diminishing returns if there isn’t sufficient capacity.
It would be intersting to see at least the number of people at different career stages on a given path. I assume some data should be available from regular surveys. And maybe also some estimates on the capacity of different paths.
And I assume the career coaching services likely have an even more detailed picture including missing talent/skills/experience that they can utilize for more personalized advice.
Two caveats on my view:
I think I’m skeptical of my own impact in ops roles, but it seems likely that senior roles are harder to hire for generally, which might generally mean taking one could be more impactful (if you’re good at it).
I think many other “doer” careers that aren’t ops are very impactful in expectation — in particular founding new organizations (if done well or in an important and neglected area). I also think work like being a programs staff member at a non-research org is very much in the “doer” direction, and could be higher impact than ops or many research roles.
Also, I think our views as expressed here aren’t exactly opposite — I think my work in ops has had relatively little impact ex post, but that’s slightly different than thinking ops careers won’t have impact in expectation (though I think I lean fairly heavily in that direction too, just due to the number of qualified candidates for many ops roles).
Overall, I suspect Peter and I don’t disagree a ton (though haven’t talked with him about it) on any of this, and I agree with his overall assertion (more people should consider “doer” careers over research careers), I think I just also think that more people should consider earning to give over any direct work.
Also, Peter hires for tons of research roles, and I hire for tons of ops roles, so maybe this is also just us having siloed perspectives on the spaces we work in?
How does a programs staff role differ from an ops role?
I mean something like directly implementing an intervention vs finance/HR/legal/back office roles, so ops just in the nonprofit sense.
In that case I suspect there’s not disagreement, and you’re just each using ops to mean somewhat different things?
Is there a proposed/proven way of coordinating on the prioritization?
Without a good feedback loop I can imagine the majority of the people just jump on the same path which could then run into diminishing returns if there isn’t sufficient capacity.
It would be intersting to see at least the number of people at different career stages on a given path. I assume some data should be available from regular surveys. And maybe also some estimates on the capacity of different paths.
And I assume the career coaching services likely have an even more detailed picture including missing talent/skills/experience that they can utilize for more personalized advice.