So I don’t have any extra knowledge to add to FHI, but I think this quote hits on something key:
and I don’t think I know anyone who thinks he adds net positive value as a manager** (vs. as a researcher, where I agree he has made important contributions, but that could continue without him wasting a critical leadership position, and as a founder, where his work is done).
There are a few cases like this where excellent EA researchers end up as org leaders, but this is not the thing that they’re best at. From other people’s reports in this thread Bostrom seems to be a textbook example here. I’d also say MacAskill and Backstead come to my mind here given that they are board members of EVF, but their background/​experience/​expertise is mostly in academic philosophy as far as my outside view can tell.[1]
I can see the argument that you’d want someone with this background who has deep knowledge of the movement’s philosophical tradition and arguments to be on a board, but I’d be surprised if the very best people in EA at research/​idea generation would also be the very best we have at organisational strategy, community leadership, and people management—which are the qualities I’d want to be at the heads of EA organisations. The suggestion by Sean about a co-directorship might be a good one for many EA orgs perhaps? I sense that we’re probably very over-indexed in excellent reseachers and under-indexed in organisational experts, so this might be a way of not letting the former crowd out the latter for these leadership roles.
Final quick points for clarification:
I’ve never run or been part of leading a significant organisation myself, so these thoughts can definitely be wrong! And I’d appreciate explanations as to why
My apriori view that Will and Nick might not be the best org leaders in EA doesn’t mean I don’t like them as people, or I don’t like their work
I’m open to the point of view that these EA thought leaders end up leading orgs because there are few others putting themselves forward. I assume those running EA orgs have the evidence for this one way or the other, and if true it’d be a good thing to look at rectifying.
So I don’t have any extra knowledge to add to FHI, but I think this quote hits on something key:
There are a few cases like this where excellent EA researchers end up as org leaders, but this is not the thing that they’re best at. From other people’s reports in this thread Bostrom seems to be a textbook example here. I’d also say MacAskill and Backstead come to my mind here given that they are board members of EVF, but their background/​experience/​expertise is mostly in academic philosophy as far as my outside view can tell.[1]
I can see the argument that you’d want someone with this background who has deep knowledge of the movement’s philosophical tradition and arguments to be on a board, but I’d be surprised if the very best people in EA at research/​idea generation would also be the very best we have at organisational strategy, community leadership, and people management—which are the qualities I’d want to be at the heads of EA organisations. The suggestion by Sean about a co-directorship might be a good one for many EA orgs perhaps? I sense that we’re probably very over-indexed in excellent reseachers and under-indexed in organisational experts, so this might be a way of not letting the former crowd out the latter for these leadership roles.
Final quick points for clarification:
I’ve never run or been part of leading a significant organisation myself, so these thoughts can definitely be wrong! And I’d appreciate explanations as to why
My apriori view that Will and Nick might not be the best org leaders in EA doesn’t mean I don’t like them as people, or I don’t like their work
I’m open to the point of view that these EA thought leaders end up leading orgs because there are few others putting themselves forward. I assume those running EA orgs have the evidence for this one way or the other, and if true it’d be a good thing to look at rectifying.
I’m sure this pattern holds for other orgs as well, EVF is just what came to mind