See the original proposal here.

Note: take this data as anecdotal, or at best a case study. There are too little data and too many confounding variables to draw anything more than that out of this pilot—that being said, it hopefully provides something useful.

Summary

• The group seemed decently effective in facilitating psychosocial wellness, while there were fewer indications of its effectiveness in professional development
• The biggest obstacle for such groups is attrition, which is not entirely solvable
• I think it would be helpful to maintain the importance of attendance and active participation while making other things (like readings and worksheets) strictly optional

Overall Reflection

There were two main purposes for the group: psychosocial wellness and professional development. I anticipated that talking through things, encouraging one another, provision of structure, a sense of common being (or common humanity), and the creation of a sense of community would foster psychosocial wellness. I also believed that structure, collaboration/networking, and sharing wisdom would boost professional development.

I think the group was most helpful in the psychosocial wellness dimension. I remember hearing multiple times from multiple people that the group (or a discussion which took place in the group) was helpful to them. I also think that people getting to see other people who were cool and interested in EA but also just young people like them was helpful in developing a greater sense of common humanity and lessening impostor syndrome—though this is especially speculative on my part.

It’s hard to tell exactly how helpful the group was in the career dimension; though at least directly, I don’t think it was that helpful. I’ll note that I think on an absolute scale, a lot of career advice (including 80k’s) is not that helpful (at least short-term)—so perhaps in relative terms, this group wasn’t so bad. In terms of tangible outcomes, there has been at least one professional EA partnership that has come out of this group. I am not aware of this group causing or significantly catalyzing any significant career shifts (of course, this should not be the sole index of effectiveness).

Note that people in the pilot were mainly drawn from my and Zoe’s personal networks, while people in future groups may all not know of one another. It may be more of a challenge to get people to connect and commit in general than it did for our group

What I’d Do Differently (Next Time?)

I think the largest barrier to efficacy for this group was attrition. This is understandable, as many of us were either busy with school or work while the group was running, and it was difficult to find a time where everyone was always completely free. I think decreasing attrition would be the most important point of improvement for future groups. There are two directions one can go in with this: either reduce commitment requirements to entice more people, or increase commitment requirements to communicate seriousness. I would advocate for some of both: eliminate commitments to everything else but showing up, but maintain the importance of regular attendance and participation.

One awkward part of the group was readings. I had structured the group much like EA fellowships, except to spare people somewhat I had us read during the group. I think these were both mistakes. The main value of the group seemed to be in talking with one another, and I/someone else could probably get the ball rolling on that easily enough. I think readings should be strictly optional for this kind of group.

I also created some worksheets based on 80k’s and Probably Good’s worksheets/content. I’m guessing that this is effective at helping some people but not others. Similarly to the readings, it’s probably best if this is optional.

As you can probably tell, I would emphasize the talking (and psychosocial) dimensions of this group in future iterations. That still leaves a broader question of what the group should look like, as I can see two major options: 1) a larger, more porous group where people can choose to attend (or not) whenever they want, or 2) a smaller group where attendance is mandatory or strongly recommended. I’d given some thought to the first option, but I ultimately think the second option is the only viable one for the aims this group has. Allowing people to attend or not both sends a signal of unseriousness and makes building deeper relationships more difficult (since no one knows who else will be in attendance week-by-week). I think a close-knit group of around 5–7 people will probably fare better than a larger but less committed group.

I still think creating groups for people at specific ranges in their ages and careers is helpful because it helps to see and interact with people like you who face and understand the same relevant problems you do. That being said, I would be interested to see if older/more established people can interact with these kinds of groups as guests/guides.

Do I Plan to Run Another One?

As a person who knows what it’s like for people entering the job market (or people trying to find jobs in general), I believe strongly in mentorship and mutual aid. So I do want to keep running these sorts of things, and I encourage other people to do the same. I don’t have any specific plans at the moment, but if you’re interested in participating, let me know on the Forum or shoot me an email at [email protected]. If there’s enough interest and schedules work, there will be another group.

Post Script

Thanks to everyone who participated (won’t name names to keep things extra confidential but you know who you are)! If you were a participant and you see an inaccuracy or have a comment/disagreement regarding the way I’ve presented things, let me know or comment below!