Okay so, if you’ll bear with me a moment, your comment has actually convinced me that EA is in fact not hierarchical, but I do agree with your intended point.
Buck’s comment, and the parent post by ConcernedEAs, point out that there’s a small, tightly-knit group that’s involved in many of the core EA organizations, who all know each other and collectively influence a lot of funding outcomes.
This is not the same thing as a hierarchy. There’s no middle management, no corporate ladder you have to climb, and (as far as I’ve seen) no office politics you have to wade through before you can reach the top of an organization or receive your grant funding. EA is far less hierarchical than anything similar you could compare it to, such as 501(c)(3)s, academia, government, or for-profit corporations. It’s more like a loose collection of 100 startups.
But the point I think you are making when you (and other comments I’ve seen) call it hierarchical is that this small group of influential people have a lot of power, and if most of your professional life is within EA, your outcomes are dependent on them and their decisions.
I think there is an aspect in which EA does really well with this: if you have a good (or bad) idea for a charitable project, it’ll get funded (or not) based on its merits (or flaws), and EA won’t disqualify you from opportunities for being too young or too old or female or a foreigner.
But there is this problem you’re pointing out, where maybe you have to join Buck and Claire’s polycule to get in touch with the grantmakers, or you’re expected to stay in Owen’s guest room while you’re in town for the nonprofit interview he referred you to. This tight-knit group of people has a lot of influence, and as we’re seeing in the situation described in this post, their power affects all the people they interact with even if they don’t realize it.
Edit: for anyone who disagrees with this comment, can you explain what that I said was wrong?
This is not the same thing as a hierarchy. There’s no middle management, no corporate ladder you have to climb, and (as far as I’ve seen) no office politics you have to wade through before you can reach the top of an organization or receive your grant funding
Seems like you’re confusing hierarchy with ‘formal corporate hierarchy.’ There is what I would call an informal hierarchy in EA. Most of your post seems to agree with that so frankly I’m a bit confused as to your point?
One of the reasons this type of setup is so problematic is that informal hierarchies pretend to be open while secretly keeping power tight. In that way it can be far worse than other organizations you list.
Perhaps we just have different definitions of the word. There are a small group of people who are tightly knit and control many of the large scale decisions in EA.
To me, that is clearly a form of hierarchy. Where does that word break down for you?
Okay so, if you’ll bear with me a moment, your comment has actually convinced me that EA is in fact not hierarchical, but I do agree with your intended point.
Buck’s comment, and the parent post by ConcernedEAs, point out that there’s a small, tightly-knit group that’s involved in many of the core EA organizations, who all know each other and collectively influence a lot of funding outcomes.
This is not the same thing as a hierarchy. There’s no middle management, no corporate ladder you have to climb, and (as far as I’ve seen) no office politics you have to wade through before you can reach the top of an organization or receive your grant funding. EA is far less hierarchical than anything similar you could compare it to, such as 501(c)(3)s, academia, government, or for-profit corporations. It’s more like a loose collection of 100 startups.
But the point I think you are making when you (and other comments I’ve seen) call it hierarchical is that this small group of influential people have a lot of power, and if most of your professional life is within EA, your outcomes are dependent on them and their decisions.
I think there is an aspect in which EA does really well with this: if you have a good (or bad) idea for a charitable project, it’ll get funded (or not) based on its merits (or flaws), and EA won’t disqualify you from opportunities for being too young or too old or female or a foreigner.
But there is this problem you’re pointing out, where maybe you have to join Buck and Claire’s polycule to get in touch with the grantmakers, or you’re expected to stay in Owen’s guest room while you’re in town for the nonprofit interview he referred you to. This tight-knit group of people has a lot of influence, and as we’re seeing in the situation described in this post, their power affects all the people they interact with even if they don’t realize it.
Edit: for anyone who disagrees with this comment, can you explain what that I said was wrong?
Seems like you’re confusing hierarchy with ‘formal corporate hierarchy.’ There is what I would call an informal hierarchy in EA. Most of your post seems to agree with that so frankly I’m a bit confused as to your point?
One of the reasons this type of setup is so problematic is that informal hierarchies pretend to be open while secretly keeping power tight. In that way it can be far worse than other organizations you list.
No, I’m aware there are other kinds, and EA has less of those as well.
Okay, if it wasn’t clear enough: a few people in the middle of a social movement knowing each other doesn’t make it a hierarchy.
Perhaps we just have different definitions of the word. There are a small group of people who are tightly knit and control many of the large scale decisions in EA.
To me, that is clearly a form of hierarchy. Where does that word break down for you?