+1. I was really excited by this because I think networking can be so powerful, but skimming through, I didn’t have that many takeaways from this. The key divergence from the status quo that I saw was encouraging non-EA connections.
I think this point (“we want EA as a whole to be closer to a distributed network where people have strong connections with several other people, rather than a extremely centralised network with strong connections to only a few people”) is especially interesting to me, but I’m not super sure how to address it … My efforts at helping others become more networked doesn’t always result in them developing their own networks. For example, I try to introduce UChiEA members to members and organizations outside of us, but maybe ~50% of the time it just reinforces centralisation (I am ‘the person’ to contact).
But that starts to feel like ‘general networking skills’ and perhaps that’s just beyond the scope of this post. : )
edit: My anecdote is purely based off my personal impressions. I have yet to gather any data on whether my attempts to connect my members to others were actually unsuccessful at inspiring them to become better networked.
However, I see no evidence that the members whom I encourage to make intra- and inter-organization (within UChiEA and between a UChiEA/non-UChiEA member) connections later become better networked (e.g., they do not seem to have developed more relationships with other UChiEA or non-UChiEA people; they do not seem more familiar with non-UChiEA orgs).
Hi Miranda, you can see my response to Michael which addresses your first point.
For example, I try to introduce UChiEA members to members and organizations outside of us, but maybe ~50% of the time it just reinforces centralisation (I am ‘the person’ to contact).
Thanks for raising this. Could you possibly provide an example of this happening? I’d be really curious to know of a specific example you have in mind, and what exactly happened. I don’t have a good mental model of why this is reinforcing you as the key contact—do the members not interact with non-EA organisations? Do they have a one-off conversation but not take it further? Are they afraid of networking themselves?
Also, what do you mean by being “the person” to contact—could you give an example of this? It’s not clear to me if this meas that people from outside of EA see you as the person to contact, or community members themselves (or both / neither / something else entirely).
On a related note, it’s unclear to me how distributed we want intergroup networks (i.e. a network including your community + others) to be and what cost this comes at—I think we could be more distirbuted than we currently are. I think the challenge is that I’d want people who are pretty committed engaged EAs to do this—but those are the people who are most likely to be have fairly insular and relatively closed networks.
Thanks for responding! I will note that I haven’t gathered data on this so my original comment is misleading, since I didn’t note that this is just my impression (that my attempts reinforce centralisation).
Here is what I think is happening more often than not when I connect a member to someone:
They probably schedule a 1:1 but do not develop a continuing relationship (which is not per se a problem, since it’s likely that this is because the relationship is not helpful)
However, the member does not reach out to anyone else in EA as a result of this relationship, either
I keep offering to connect them to other contacts and they will agree, leading to more one-off calls like the above
(This is the most speculative part) This is, in a way, reinforcing the impression that I will flag when there is someone I think they should talk to, or in some way reduces the visible importance of taking the initiative to develop a network
Re: “the person” to contact, I’m referring to the perception of my group members. My bad for the lack of clarity!
+1. I was really excited by this because I think networking can be so powerful, but skimming through, I didn’t have that many takeaways from this. The key divergence from the status quo that I saw was encouraging non-EA connections.
I think this point (“we want EA as a whole to be closer to a distributed network where people have strong connections with several other people, rather than a extremely centralised network with strong connections to only a few people”) is especially interesting to me, but I’m not super sure how to address it … My efforts at helping others become more networked doesn’t always result in them developing their own networks. For example, I try to introduce UChiEA members to members and organizations outside of us, but maybe ~50% of the time it just reinforces centralisation (I am ‘the person’ to contact).
But that starts to feel like ‘general networking skills’ and perhaps that’s just beyond the scope of this post. : )
edit: My anecdote is purely based off my personal impressions. I have yet to gather any data on whether my attempts to connect my members to others were actually unsuccessful at inspiring them to become better networked.
However, I see no evidence that the members whom I encourage to make intra- and inter-organization (within UChiEA and between a UChiEA/non-UChiEA member) connections later become better networked (e.g., they do not seem to have developed more relationships with other UChiEA or non-UChiEA people; they do not seem more familiar with non-UChiEA orgs).
Hi Miranda, you can see my response to Michael which addresses your first point.
Thanks for raising this. Could you possibly provide an example of this happening? I’d be really curious to know of a specific example you have in mind, and what exactly happened. I don’t have a good mental model of why this is reinforcing you as the key contact—do the members not interact with non-EA organisations? Do they have a one-off conversation but not take it further? Are they afraid of networking themselves?
Also, what do you mean by being “the person” to contact—could you give an example of this? It’s not clear to me if this meas that people from outside of EA see you as the person to contact, or community members themselves (or both / neither / something else entirely).
On a related note, it’s unclear to me how distributed we want intergroup networks (i.e. a network including your community + others) to be and what cost this comes at—I think we could be more distirbuted than we currently are. I think the challenge is that I’d want people who are pretty committed engaged EAs to do this—but those are the people who are most likely to be have fairly insular and relatively closed networks.
Thanks for responding! I will note that I haven’t gathered data on this so my original comment is misleading, since I didn’t note that this is just my impression (that my attempts reinforce centralisation).
Here is what I think is happening more often than not when I connect a member to someone:
They probably schedule a 1:1 but do not develop a continuing relationship (which is not per se a problem, since it’s likely that this is because the relationship is not helpful)
However, the member does not reach out to anyone else in EA as a result of this relationship, either
I keep offering to connect them to other contacts and they will agree, leading to more one-off calls like the above
(This is the most speculative part) This is, in a way, reinforcing the impression that I will flag when there is someone I think they should talk to, or in some way reduces the visible importance of taking the initiative to develop a network
Re: “the person” to contact, I’m referring to the perception of my group members. My bad for the lack of clarity!