Re “Middle management is toxic, we should avoid it.”:
I want to flag that: your counterargument here does not properly address the points from Middle Manager Hell / the Immoral Mazes sequences. (Less constructively, “Middle management being toxic” seems like a quite weak version of the arguments against large orgs. Which suggests that your counterargument might not work against the stronger version.
More constructively, one difference between current EA structure and large orgs is that small EA orgs are not married to a single funder. This imo reduces the “toxicity” you might otherwise get by the invectives structure in large companies.
There might be other important differences; I just haven’t thought about this enough.)
All that said, perhaps we can get the best of the both worlds by using larger orgs for some things but not all?
And inventing some tools that make it easier to get the benefits you want without all of the costs? (Example: something that allows people to temporarily/tentatively switch jobs without having to deal with all the paperwork.)
your counterargument here does not properly address the points from Middle Manager Hell / the Immoral Mazes sequences
I didn’t mean for it to. I was just pointing at the general dislike for Middle Management.
More constructively, one difference between current EA structure and large orgs is that small EA orgs are not married to a single funder.
I think one awkward thing now is that many of them are sort of married to a single funder. The EA funding community can be really narrow right now—just a few funders, and with similar/overlapping opinions and personnel.
All that said, perhaps we can get the best of the both worlds by using larger orgs for some things but not all?
I think we can do better about getting better sets of trade-offs. There’s also “large orgs, with lots of team freedom” as a medium. I also listed some strategies in the “Try to Mimic Organizational Strengths” section. I’d be happy to see this area worked on further!
Re “Middle management is toxic, we should avoid it.”:
I want to flag that: your counterargument here does not properly address the points from Middle Manager Hell / the Immoral Mazes sequences. (Less constructively, “Middle management being toxic” seems like a quite weak version of the arguments against large orgs. Which suggests that your counterargument might not work against the stronger version. More constructively, one difference between current EA structure and large orgs is that small EA orgs are not married to a single funder. This imo reduces the “toxicity” you might otherwise get by the invectives structure in large companies. There might be other important differences; I just haven’t thought about this enough.)
All that said, perhaps we can get the best of the both worlds by using larger orgs for some things but not all? And inventing some tools that make it easier to get the benefits you want without all of the costs? (Example: something that allows people to temporarily/tentatively switch jobs without having to deal with all the paperwork.)
I didn’t mean for it to. I was just pointing at the general dislike for Middle Management.
I think one awkward thing now is that many of them are sort of married to a single funder. The EA funding community can be really narrow right now—just a few funders, and with similar/overlapping opinions and personnel.
I think we can do better about getting better sets of trade-offs. There’s also “large orgs, with lots of team freedom” as a medium. I also listed some strategies in the “Try to Mimic Organizational Strengths” section. I’d be happy to see this area worked on further!