I think this definition of talent constraints (found in clarification 1 of OP) lends itself to ambiguity and confusion:
“An organization is talent constrained when, for someone who could take (a reasonably important) job at that organization, they would typically contribute more to that organization by taking the job than earning to give… While we think this framing can sometimes be useful, it also has some problems. For example, this definition seems less useful when an organization’s best potential hires don’t have very high earning potential and wouldn’t be very good funders.”
An organization is talent constrained when it doesn’t have (and/or can’t hire reasonably easily) the people it needs despite offering competitive compensation.
I argue that while this definition…
“may not be perfect[1], but it has the advantages of being simple and applicable across organizations, causes, roles, and geographies. Perhaps most importantly, it’s an intuitive definition: if someone hears the term “talent constrained” it will likely conjure up images of an organization that doesn’t have the talent it needs, rather than an organization where (some) potential supporters would be more valuable as employees than donors.”
I think this definition of talent constraints (found in clarification 1 of OP) lends itself to ambiguity and confusion:
In a post proposing we look at the EA labor market using traditional models, I suggest an alternative definition:
I argue that while this definition…