I recently had a conversation with a teammate that made me reflect on a possible cultural issue within the EA community. This teammate had expressed in a few meetings that they wanted to take on various new projects and expand their scope of responsibility. As their manager, I wanted to have Alliance Mentality to support them where possible. However, from my perspective, a slightly more tightly scoped role was probably a bit better for the team: their core responsibilities are vital for the team (and for what it’s worth, when I try to do them, I'm much worse at them!).
During our recent one-on-one, realized that we both preferred the more tightly scoped role. More importantly, we uncovered that they had internalized a cultural norm from EA that people needed to be constantly changing or expanding their roles to be doing a good job.
I wanted to write a quick post to push against this narrative.
The Pressure to Change Roles
In the EA community, we often celebrate individuals for leaving roles to start new projects, talk about being “agentic,” and often classify changing roles as “impact stories.” My teammate mentioned that this prevalent narrative contributed to their feeling that they needed to take on more and different tasks.
As both their manager and someone in a leadership role in the community, I feel responsible for pushing against this narrative. Being effective and impactful doesn't necessarily come from starting something new or constantly changing your role. We need to highlight the critical importance of those who provide stability, consistency, and reliable execution in our organizations.
The Value of Steady Hands
Every successful organization, including those in the EA space, relies on a mix of roles and personalities. We need individuals who:
1. Provide continuity: Maintain institutional knowledge and ensure smooth operations.
2. Execute reliably: Consistently deliver high-quality work in their area of expertise.
3. Build deep expertise: Develop mastery in specific areas through long-term focus.
These individuals are the bedrock of our organizations. They may not always be in the spotlight, but their contributions are invaluable. When I’ve had to replace people in these roles, it can take months to run the hiring round, in addition to the months (or years) it takes to get the person up to speed enough to operate at the level of a seasoned contributor.
Shifting the Narrative
If you're in a leadership position, consider how you can better support and appreciate team members who excel in stable roles. As a first step, insofar as you agree with the sentiment here, I suggest communicating explicitly to teammates in support roles that there isn’t an "up or out" expectation. I also recommend making sure you regularly acknowledge their contributions and the value they bring, and actively work to create an environment where all types of contributions are valued.
As a community, I think we need to actively work on giving proper recognition and status to those who make the gears turn behind the scenes. We did some of this years ago during the "props for ops" campaign (see this 80,000 Hours article, for example), but this recent experience is a reminder that we need to consistently reinforce the message.
It's important to note that this isn't about discouraging ambitious new projects or suggesting that people shouldn't sometimes change roles. Lots of impact has come from this path as well! I simply want to make sure we recognize and acknowledge that different individuals have different strengths, preferences, and ways of contributing to our shared goals. And for some people, the most impactful role can be the role they are already in!
Completely agree, and I think your three points under "the value of steady hands" are hugely important and often underrated, at all levels of organisations. I also think 50 years ago these features would have been valued much more highly, but this has changed with the culture of rapid career climbing among ambitious young people.
Although the context is a little different, I think the keenness of huge companies to keep the same people in leadership for decades is a datapoint in favour of this as well.
I think there is something here about the kinds of people who are steady hands not necessarily having great leverage either in terms of pay or status. But realistically such a person may be very costly to replace or do a very valuable role.
In that way, a sensible organisation would increase their pay and (to the extent possible) status by reflecting not on the change of their output from year to year, but actually how difficult they are to replace, which might be weeks of hiring, months of training, months of management time and perhaps years of time passing to get back to the function working as well as it previously did.
It is tricky to think how such negotiations can take place properly, but it seems likely to me that the sort of person who is likely to be a steady hand might not be agitatng for such, but that in turn means those who would say if paid more, appreciated more, don't see that option available to them.
+1 and I'd go further - I think that "steady hands" are even more critical at the leadership level.
Very useful insight, thanks !