No idea -- I don't have nearly enough to go off of. Curious what you learn, though.

I think the absence of particular harms is easy to overlook, in all sorts of areas, especially in a space focused on identifying tractable problems, so I wouldn't update the same way based on lack of positive discussion. I'll happily go on the record and say (as a woman) that I've had much, much better experiences in male-dominated EA spaces than male-dominated non-EA spaces.

I think so, yes. Part of why, for example, I was and am critical of CEA's leadership's response to the recent sexual harassment report is because I believe we as a community generally are often capable of and desirous of achieving a higher standard than top universities and workplaces, which I think you believe too, based on the data in this post! My guess is that we're fundamentally on the same page, but I don't want to assume this. 
 

Thanks for writing, Nathan! I think there are two separate arguments: one says that EA is doing worse than baseline, and the other is that EA is doing worse than our shared -- sometimes implicit -- community standards. It's fair to ask people to chart their expectations against baseline for almost anything, but it's also fair to establish community norms above baseline. Some of the comments you quoted (inc. one of mine) are critiques relying on the higher standard. 

 

A small story: I worked for several years at one of the top professional services firms, and encountered tremendous political opposition to forecasting, as had some of my more senior and accomplished peers. I was surprised by this. I shouldn't have been, given that I was de facto asking a hierarchical power structure to at least partially reallocate decision-making authority. Most leaders barely tolerate manipulable data — the threat of additional accountability is a tough sell. Possible, but tough!

Important, well-researched, and critically timed -- this is the type of content I come to the Forum for. Thank you for sharing. 

Hit me on a cellular level. It appears I have no original experiences. Thank you for writing!!

I wonder if measurability bias is present here. Encouragement and accountability for leaders are two crucial drivers of group success, and the most successful group leaders I know provide these for their members even though it doesn't scale. I can't say this isn't a good decision, because I don't know what the team time is trading off against, but I'd expect might lead to reduced group quality and growth over time. 

This is very good, IMO, and should get way more attention! I've tested it a few times and have been recommending it to advisees.

Great news, and excited to see more effective careers organizations start and scale!

Question: why non-renewable by default? Funder diversity is obviously the ideal, but that can trade off with value alignment (especially as projects scale). Are you anticipating building longer-term partnerships with organizations that outperform other grantees?

[No expectation to respond here, but wanted to ask in case]