‘We want and need the community’s help in spotting those risks early.’
In my experience of EA organisations, one of the clearest risks I’ve observed is the gap between theoretical effectiveness and what happens in practice.
To speak candidly, there are organisations that aren’t doing much work. In such cases, the EA label can start to function more as a branding tool for funders than a reflection of impact. This is a risk, because:
1. The work isn’t getting done 2. Staff motivation tends to decline over time in low-output environments, and 3. Staff time is, ultimately, funded by donors, and should be used with that in mind.
To build greater trust and credibility, we might consider exploring some form of ecosystem-wide audit of productivity.
By way of disclaimer, this view is based on my own limited and anecdotal experience, and is not intended to detract from the significant achievements of the movement overall.
I’m on board with the goal of strengthening EA’s brand and reaching broader audiences. I’m currently in the hiring process for your Media Specialist role and would be glad to share some ideas on how we might approach this strategically at interview.
It also rings true in my experience for donors to feel undervalued. I think there’s a level of taking funding for granted, and that it would be wise to address this. One possibility might be a structured consultation process with funders to better understand their perspectives and concerns, and to explore ways of responding proactively.
Presumably CEA already has mechanisms in place to help donors feel engaged and appreciated. If not, I’d be very happy to contribute ideas on how to build them!
‘We want and need the community’s help in spotting those risks early.’
In my experience of EA organisations, one of the clearest risks I’ve observed is the gap between theoretical effectiveness and what happens in practice.
To speak candidly, there are organisations that aren’t doing much work. In such cases, the EA label can start to function more as a branding tool for funders than a reflection of impact. This is a risk, because:
1. The work isn’t getting done
2. Staff motivation tends to decline over time in low-output environments, and
3. Staff time is, ultimately, funded by donors, and should be used with that in mind.
To build greater trust and credibility, we might consider exploring some form of ecosystem-wide audit of productivity.
By way of disclaimer, this view is based on my own limited and anecdotal experience, and is not intended to detract from the significant achievements of the movement overall.
I’m on board with the goal of strengthening EA’s brand and reaching broader audiences. I’m currently in the hiring process for your Media Specialist role and would be glad to share some ideas on how we might approach this strategically at interview.
It also rings true in my experience for donors to feel undervalued. I think there’s a level of taking funding for granted, and that it would be wise to address this. One possibility might be a structured consultation process with funders to better understand their perspectives and concerns, and to explore ways of responding proactively.
Presumably CEA already has mechanisms in place to help donors feel engaged and appreciated. If not, I’d be very happy to contribute ideas on how to build them!