[ETA: I somewhat regret eliding the issue with donations to other issues re. interpersonal relationships. I take the opportunity to stress it wasnât written with a particular individual/âs âin mindâ.]
I broadly agree with Owen. Beyond the considerations already mentioned, I prefer increasing professionalisation of those working in (at least the larger) EA orgs, and norms against salary sacrifice etc. I think would help this desirable direction of travel.
In most corporations (and most charities), including very high performing ones (e.g. Google, Deepmind, GiveDirectly, etc.) situations where employees are sacrificing considerable fractions of their salary, living in long term shared housing with their colleagues, or can name multiple fellow employees among their past or current sexual partners are rare. These arrangements are less surprising for smaller groups (e.g. the model of the start-up in the garage), but much more so when you have formal structures, a board, and turnover in the 6-7 figures.
I donât claim expertise here, but Iâd suspect thereâs a reason for the ubiquity of âcorporateâ structures, oft-maligned as they are, and Iâd venture it has something to do with ensuring clarity and accuracy of decision making. It is better that, insofar as possible, corporate decisions are not interleaved with pecuniary, interpersonal, or bedroom issues. Similarly, norms that retard development of conflicts of interest like these are preferable to relying on staff to navigate them appropriately.
The failure modes are manifold. The hypothetical challenges around firing someone who is, in addition to oneâs subordinate, a housemate, ex, and current partner of another staff member need not be explicated. Although I do not want to regurgitate the unhappy episode around Intentional Insights, there were records of virtual assistants offering to âdonateâ money to Intentional Insights, the net result of which was to reduce what InIn owed them and had been late paying. I doubt any EA org has or will do anything similar, but it illustrates the risks of a parallel financial transaction alongside salary which could be used to bypass proper process (some possibilities: maybe Iâm worried you might fire me for poor performance, so I increase my salary sacrifice by way of cutting my price; I fail to negotiate a raise I think I deserve from you, so I simply reduce my salary sacrifice/âdonation by the requisite amount (which annoys you); I donât really take your standards re. dress, punctuality etc. seriously as although I am in principle getting paid ÂŁX, de facto youâre paying me barely minimum wage etc. etc.)
Iâd generally prefer EA staff get paid close to market, and thereâs a norm discouraging donations to ones employer.
The failure modes are manifold. The hypothetical challenges around firing someone who is, in addition to oneâs subordinate, a housemate, ex, and current partner of another staff member need not be explicated.
Sorry but what does this have to do with donations? In what way are these at all equivalent with donations?
Gregâs point is that the case against donating to oneâs employer is part of a larger argument for increased professionalization of EA orgs. The situation he describes in the paragraph you quote illustrates what can go wrong when an organization lacks the level of professionalism he thinks orgs should have.
Yes, I see thatâs what heâs trying to hint at, but thereâs zero indication that donations have any of the same effects on professionalism that close interpersonal relationships have. The problem is not âI donât understand your argumentâ, itâs âyouâre alleging something out of the blue with no support.â It should be clear that dating a coworker and donating to the organization are completely different issues in many relevant respects. I can easily draw up examples of behavior which donât reduce professionalism and are actually more comparableâvoluntary overtime, for instance, which companies donât forbid, or people covering expenses for the organization, which is common in nonprofits and some government agencies.
I actually regret this paragraph for the opposite reason: the risk it came across as a veiled side-swipe, or (even worse) someone might take me to be offering gratuitous commentary on their private life. (I have disclaimed accordingly).
Pablo has interpreted me correctly. I agree donations etc. are different from the others, but I aver they are similar in that they undermine âcorporate professionalâ type norms that larger EA groups are well-advised to adopt, if not to the same degree (FWIW, I think voluntary overtime is at least slightly worrisome for similar reasons).
[ETA: I somewhat regret eliding the issue with donations to other issues re. interpersonal relationships. I take the opportunity to stress it wasnât written with a particular individual/âs âin mindâ.]
I broadly agree with Owen. Beyond the considerations already mentioned, I prefer increasing professionalisation of those working in (at least the larger) EA orgs, and norms against salary sacrifice etc. I think would help this desirable direction of travel.
In most corporations (and most charities), including very high performing ones (e.g. Google, Deepmind, GiveDirectly, etc.) situations where employees are sacrificing considerable fractions of their salary, living in long term shared housing with their colleagues, or can name multiple fellow employees among their past or current sexual partners are rare. These arrangements are less surprising for smaller groups (e.g. the model of the start-up in the garage), but much more so when you have formal structures, a board, and turnover in the 6-7 figures.
I donât claim expertise here, but Iâd suspect thereâs a reason for the ubiquity of âcorporateâ structures, oft-maligned as they are, and Iâd venture it has something to do with ensuring clarity and accuracy of decision making. It is better that, insofar as possible, corporate decisions are not interleaved with pecuniary, interpersonal, or bedroom issues. Similarly, norms that retard development of conflicts of interest like these are preferable to relying on staff to navigate them appropriately.
The failure modes are manifold. The hypothetical challenges around firing someone who is, in addition to oneâs subordinate, a housemate, ex, and current partner of another staff member need not be explicated. Although I do not want to regurgitate the unhappy episode around Intentional Insights, there were records of virtual assistants offering to âdonateâ money to Intentional Insights, the net result of which was to reduce what InIn owed them and had been late paying. I doubt any EA org has or will do anything similar, but it illustrates the risks of a parallel financial transaction alongside salary which could be used to bypass proper process (some possibilities: maybe Iâm worried you might fire me for poor performance, so I increase my salary sacrifice by way of cutting my price; I fail to negotiate a raise I think I deserve from you, so I simply reduce my salary sacrifice/âdonation by the requisite amount (which annoys you); I donât really take your standards re. dress, punctuality etc. seriously as although I am in principle getting paid ÂŁX, de facto youâre paying me barely minimum wage etc. etc.)
Iâd generally prefer EA staff get paid close to market, and thereâs a norm discouraging donations to ones employer.
Sorry but what does this have to do with donations? In what way are these at all equivalent with donations?
Gregâs point is that the case against donating to oneâs employer is part of a larger argument for increased professionalization of EA orgs. The situation he describes in the paragraph you quote illustrates what can go wrong when an organization lacks the level of professionalism he thinks orgs should have.
Yes, I see thatâs what heâs trying to hint at, but thereâs zero indication that donations have any of the same effects on professionalism that close interpersonal relationships have. The problem is not âI donât understand your argumentâ, itâs âyouâre alleging something out of the blue with no support.â It should be clear that dating a coworker and donating to the organization are completely different issues in many relevant respects. I can easily draw up examples of behavior which donât reduce professionalism and are actually more comparableâvoluntary overtime, for instance, which companies donât forbid, or people covering expenses for the organization, which is common in nonprofits and some government agencies.
I actually regret this paragraph for the opposite reason: the risk it came across as a veiled side-swipe, or (even worse) someone might take me to be offering gratuitous commentary on their private life. (I have disclaimed accordingly).
Pablo has interpreted me correctly. I agree donations etc. are different from the others, but I aver they are similar in that they undermine âcorporate professionalâ type norms that larger EA groups are well-advised to adopt, if not to the same degree (FWIW, I think voluntary overtime is at least slightly worrisome for similar reasons).
And what evidence is there that donations undermine professionalism?