I see, you are thinking about conflicts between the interest of being âperson X in their role at org Yâ vs âperson X in their role at org Zâ. I agree that this goes up quadratically as people have roles at more organizations: in the extreme where everyone had at most one organizational role you couldnât have any of that kind of CoI.
I had thought, though, we were talking about interpersonal conflicts of interest. Things like âperson X in their role at org Yâ vs âperson X in their role as someone dating person W at org Zâ. This is the kind of CoI that I think doesnât increase if you have fewer people across the same number of organization roles.
I think this way of thinking about it more congruent to the concerns many (including me) had around eg EVF buying Wytham Abbey
I thought the issue with the purchase was people thinking it was not cost effective, or should have been better disclosed? Whatâs the CoI argument here?
Letâs distinguish some legal conflict of interest moral conflict of interest
I think that what I described was not a legal conflict of interest, which would be where a senior staff member is faced with a decision that could benefit them.[1] IMO EAs should consider it necessary but not sufficient to avoid these.
I would call a moral conflict of interest any situation in which a senior member is faced with a decision where they have an incentive to do something that isnât in the best interest of the organisation for which they work. IMO these should also be avoided, or at least recognised as a serious cost to weigh against the upsides. Such situations put the staff in situations where itâs extremely difficult to recognise from the outside whether the decision process was really for the greater good, or a rationalisation. They seem at high risk of biasing support strongly towards the pet projects of the decisionmakers at the expense of many smaller projects that continually struggle for funding.
Wytham Abbey seems like an example of this, if as I understand members of the EVF board were involved in the decision making on OPâs behalf. Asterisk is perhaps a similar example. If anyone else in the community had suggested âan EA magazine sponsored webzineâ I suspect it would have really struggled to get traction.
faced with a decision where they have an incentive to do something that isnât in the best interest of the organisation for which they work.
Thatâs already how I was using the term, fwiw.
Wytham Abbey seems like an example of this, if as I understand members of the EVF board were involved in the decision making on OPâs behalf.
It sounds like maybe youâre saying you think thereâs fundamentally a conflict of interest in having someone from OP on the EVF board, because OP is the
funds a lot of things at EVF and whatâs best for EVF could be different from what OP wants?
This misses why OP would want to have one of their employees on the EVF board: they are providing so much funding to EVF I expect they want someone to formally represent them internally. It would be bad for OP if they granted money to EVF which then went to do things that OP didnât want to be supporting, and having board representation is a way to make that less likely.
It sounds like maybe youâre saying you think thereâs fundamentally a conflict of interest in having someone from OP on the EVF board, because OP is the funds a lot of things at EVF and whatâs best for EVF could be different from what OP wants?
Yeah, that sounds right. When youâre a senior staff member at an organisation you are, in some sense, supposed to be optimising for the health of that org. On this understanding youâre the senior staff member at multiple orgs youâre then supposed to be optimising for multiple variables, which isnât logically possible.
Obviously you can optimise for some function of the two, but this involves a lot more subjective judgement, so a) could more easily go wrong without any bad faith, and b) it can obfuscate genuinely bad faith decisions (such as prioritising support for an org with which youâre associated because it gives you greater social status) - even to the people making them.
I donât assert (or think) anyone at EVF is acting in seriously bad faith, but as Iâve said elsewhere, I think we should assume a) non-0 probability that they sometimes do so in minor ways and b) that if they continue to stay in a position that incentivises them to do so the risk will continue to increase.
This misses why OP would want to have one of their employees on the EVF board: they are providing so much funding to EVF I expect they want someone to formally represent them internally.
It doesnât âmissâ it. I understand there are other considerationsâtheyâre discussed everywhere; Iâm just stating that there exists this downside which isnât discussed nearly as much, and doesnât seem to be acknowledged by the people it applies to.
I guess I could see it that way, but this is a pretty non-central CoI. My understanding is EVF took on an OP staff member as a board member because both EVF and OP wanted to be more closely aligned. They understand that the orgs have somewhat different interests, and by putting someone in a position to embody both theyâre pulling the two orgs closer together.
I see, you are thinking about conflicts between the interest of being âperson X in their role at org Yâ vs âperson X in their role at org Zâ. I agree that this goes up quadratically as people have roles at more organizations: in the extreme where everyone had at most one organizational role you couldnât have any of that kind of CoI.
I had thought, though, we were talking about interpersonal conflicts of interest. Things like âperson X in their role at org Yâ vs âperson X in their role as someone dating person W at org Zâ. This is the kind of CoI that I think doesnât increase if you have fewer people across the same number of organization roles.
I thought the issue with the purchase was people thinking it was not cost effective, or should have been better disclosed? Whatâs the CoI argument here?
Letâs distinguish some legal conflict of interest moral conflict of interest
I think that what I described was not a legal conflict of interest, which would be where a senior staff member is faced with a decision that could benefit them.[1] IMO EAs should consider it necessary but not sufficient to avoid these.
I would call a moral conflict of interest any situation in which a senior member is faced with a decision where they have an incentive to do something that isnât in the best interest of the organisation for which they work. IMO these should also be avoided, or at least recognised as a serious cost to weigh against the upsides. Such situations put the staff in situations where itâs extremely difficult to recognise from the outside whether the decision process was really for the greater good, or a rationalisation. They seem at high risk of biasing support strongly towards the pet projects of the decisionmakers at the expense of many smaller projects that continually struggle for funding.
Wytham Abbey seems like an example of this, if as I understand members of the EVF board were involved in the decision making on OPâs behalf. Asterisk is perhaps a similar example. If anyone else in the community had suggested âan EA magazine sponsored webzineâ I suspect it would have really struggled to get traction.
Possibly this is a âconflict of loyaltyâ? I havenât found much around the legal term.
Thatâs already how I was using the term, fwiw.
It sounds like maybe youâre saying you think thereâs fundamentally a conflict of interest in having someone from OP on the EVF board, because OP is the funds a lot of things at EVF and whatâs best for EVF could be different from what OP wants?
This misses why OP would want to have one of their employees on the EVF board: they are providing so much funding to EVF I expect they want someone to formally represent them internally. It would be bad for OP if they granted money to EVF which then went to do things that OP didnât want to be supporting, and having board representation is a way to make that less likely.
Yeah, that sounds right. When youâre a senior staff member at an organisation you are, in some sense, supposed to be optimising for the health of that org. On this understanding youâre the senior staff member at multiple orgs youâre then supposed to be optimising for multiple variables, which isnât logically possible.
Obviously you can optimise for some function of the two, but this involves a lot more subjective judgement, so a) could more easily go wrong without any bad faith, and b) it can obfuscate genuinely bad faith decisions (such as prioritising support for an org with which youâre associated because it gives you greater social status) - even to the people making them.
I donât assert (or think) anyone at EVF is acting in seriously bad faith, but as Iâve said elsewhere, I think we should assume a) non-0 probability that they sometimes do so in minor ways and b) that if they continue to stay in a position that incentivises them to do so the risk will continue to increase.
It doesnât âmissâ it. I understand there are other considerationsâtheyâre discussed everywhere; Iâm just stating that there exists this downside which isnât discussed nearly as much, and doesnât seem to be acknowledged by the people it applies to.
I guess I could see it that way, but this is a pretty non-central CoI. My understanding is EVF took on an OP staff member as a board member because both EVF and OP wanted to be more closely aligned. They understand that the orgs have somewhat different interests, and by putting someone in a position to embody both theyâre pulling the two orgs closer together.