I really appreciate how transparent and specific you’ve been, both about what’s going well and what still feels a bit messy or in progress. I find this kind of honesty super helpful and refreshing! 

I had already noticed the roles being shared on LinkedIn and was intrigued, but this post has added a lot more context than a job posting ever could. I’ve been curious about Longview Philanthropy for a long time, and reading this definitely makes me want to do a deeper dive and reflect on whether there might be a role that’s a good fit for me.

Thanks again for taking the time to write this and share your experience and thoughts!

Having been through many hiring rounds as a candidate, and having done some hiring for small nonprofits, I found this a really interesting read!

The uncertainty piece feels especially important. In my experience, it is not just that performance or fit sometimes does not pan out, but that organizations are often reluctant to deal with the consequences when it happens. Avoiding hard conversations, role changes, or exits tends to make that uncertainty far more costly over time, for both the person and the organization.

I am also curious about how work tests are developed. Your mention of I/O psychology stood out. Given how much weight work tests carry and how demanding they can be for candidates, I have found myself wondering about their design while completing work tests, and how often people with relevant expertise are involved in shaping them.

Relatedly, I was intrigued by your suggestion of backtesting. I am curious whether it could be embedded into things orgs already do, to reduce workload, like capturing expectations at the offer stage and revisiting them at three month or annual check-ins to see which signals actually showed up in the role - I could see this as being incredibly useful information to gather!

My experience with EA orgs as a candidate has been mixed. I have had some really thoughtful experiences/interactions, but also confusing and low EQ ones, including clearly AI generated responses, which has felt jarring in spaces that emphasize care and long term thinking, and made me pause about what the process is actually optimizing for.

Anyways, all to say I appreciate you naming how much leverage is hiding here, and I am very curious what the impact could look like for both candidates and organizations if more people took hiring this seriously!

I really appreciate this question — it invites me to pause and reflect on my place in the larger story of humanity. When I think about what it means to be a good ancestor, I picture myself standing in a long line — generations behind me, generations ahead. I recognize that my actions today don’t just touch my own life; they ripple into the future, shaping the world my great-grandchildren and their grandchildren will inherit.

For me, a good ancestor is someone who holds both compassion and foresight. It’s someone who takes their stewardship seriously — caring for the environment, creating more just communities, and passing on knowledge and skills that will help those who come after me thrive. It’s also someone who is humble enough to realize that my time here is short, and that the choices I make will matter long after I’m gone.

Being a good ancestor means making decisions that go beyond my immediate comfort or gain. It’s living with integrity — using only my fair share of resources, choosing sustainability over convenience, and lifting up those who have been pushed to the margins. It’s acting with empathy across time, not just toward the people I can see, but toward those I’ll never meet.

More than anything, I believe being a good ancestor requires hopeful action. Even though the future is uncertain, I can do my part — protecting the land, sharing stories and traditions, and fostering communities that think beyond themselves and care for one another. These are small things, but they add up.

In the end, to be a good ancestor is to live in a way my ancestors would be proud of, and my descendants will thank me for. It’s a reminder that I’m part of something much larger than myself, and that I can help build a world where future generations can not only survive, but truly flourish.

I get your concern. I'll be the first to admit that I use ChatGTP pretty frequently - I find it very useful for polishing written docs or emails, or for getting me started with writing when I'm having a bit of brain block. However, while tools like ChatGPT are great for efficiency, I do worry they can lead to surface-level engagement, where people don’t fully grasp the complexities of the work or even the gist of what they are writing about. I also worry that relying on AI might make us miss key details and context, and I see your point that it could reduce our emotional connection to the cause. We might get more done, but at the cost of being less invested or maybe less EA aligned?

That said, AI does level the playing field for those with less experience, helping them communicate more clearly. I think/hope the key is finding the balance—using AI for efficiency without losing the depth, understanding, creativity, humaness and emotional connection that’s critical to the work.

Great insights! I really like the idea of fellowships and placements in global health and development. It’s a great way to connect talented individuals with organizations that need their skills. That said, I agree that there are challenges around talent recruitment and vetting, as well as ensuring host organizations are ready to support placements and help them grow.

I’m curious, could relationships be developed with universities that have strong international development or policy programs (or other programs related to GHD) to help source top candidates? Universities could be an amazing pipeline, especially for fellows with strong academic and practical foundations. Or, building on the idea of a high-impact talent pool, what if there were a database where potential fellows could outline the skills they offer, and organizations could list what they need help with? There would still be a need for someone vetting both the fellows and the organizations as they enter the database, ensuring trust and quality. After that, the organizations and fellows could make their own connections, which would save time and reduce the burden on an overarching organization. Although, I would see the need/benefit for someone/an org facilitating the relationship/being someone to reach out to. Could an approach like this be a low cost/risk trial?

Hi everyone, I’m Sarah! I’m relatively new to effective altruism and am excited to learn and engage with this community. My background is in social services, where I’ve focused on leadership, program development, and fostering community resilience. I’m currently transitioning into the fields of operations and human resources, looking to apply my skills in a more strategic, impact-driven context.

In addition to my professional work, I’ve founded a small business that creates and sells dehydrated meals for backcountry adventures, with a focus on sustainability and community. I’m also a founding member of MFC, an initiative where we pool resources to support community needs and engage in thoughtful discussions about the ethical distribution of wealth. Through MFC, I’ve gained valuable experience in collective decision-making and governance, which aligns closely with my passion for creating meaningful impact.

Outside of work, I’m an avid outdoors enthusiast — I enjoy biking, backpacking, and have even competed in the world’s longest annual paddling race. I’m excited to continue growing and learning through effective altruism, and I look forward to connecting with all of you.

As I move into effective altruism (EA), I’m reflecting on my experience in social services, and I find the research on mental health in EA really interesting. It’s good to see that most people report neutral or positive effects on their mental health from being involved in EA. But I do wonder—how much of this is tied to the type of work people are doing within EA? Are certain causes or types of involvement more likely to contribute to positive mental health outcomes than others?

I also noticed that the research points out how people newer to EA and younger respondents reported a slightly higher increase in mental health. I’m curious if that’s because they’re more optimistic or maybe just less burned out by the weight of the world’s problems. It would be interesting to dig deeper into whether newer people have a different experience of the community compared to those who’ve been involved for longer.

For me, it’s clear that community support is key—whether in social services or in EA. It’s that sense of shared purpose that helps people push through the hard times, but also knowing when to take a step back. Having people around who can help keep you grounded and keep things in perspective makes a huge difference. It’s something I’m looking forward to exploring more as I get involved in EA—how we balance doing good with maintaining our own wellbeing.

This piece really moved me—thank you for writing it. The line “you get to go home” caught me in the chest. I’ve worked in roles where I carried the weight of others’ stories long after the shift ended, and I’ve wrestled with that guilt: of stepping away, of being able to rest, of having the option to disconnect when others can’t.

What you’ve written here names something I’ve been slowly learning—that caring deeply doesn’t mean being endlessly available, and that our effectiveness (and our humanity) actually depends on knowing when to “go home,” whatever that looks like for each of us.

The idea of some things being beyond the reach of morality feels like such a relief. Permission to not justify rest, relationships, or joy as long-term strategies for impact—but to hold them as inherently worthwhile. I’ve struggled with the impulse to optimize everything, even the personal, and this gave me a way to reframe that.

Thanks for your thoughtful words.

Really appreciate the transparency and thought behind this, and noting that benefits like partnerships (e.g., with GWWC) may have a longer tail than what the current ROI window captures.

I'm curious: As you continue to assess the portfolio, are there plans to explore alternate or complementary metrics beyond "adjusted money moved"? Especially for orgs experimenting with newer models (like influencer-driven giving or community-based approaches), it seems like traditional ROI might not fully capture longer-term or indirect effects.

Also, love the point about seeding new efforts. Are there specific areas or donor segments you’re especially hoping new orgs might target?

It’s clear EA UK has built a strong foundation, especially in London and the Loxbridge area! In all transparency, I have not been involved with the EA UK community, but I am relocating to the UK soon, and am hopeful there is still a community there to engage with and learn from! With that in mind, from an outsiders perspective, and from having skimmed the strategy of EA UK, I’d be curious if it may be worth exploring any of the following;

• Regional & sector-specific communities outside London: Would cities like Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, and Belfast have untapped talent outside of students? Could they become vibrant EA hubs with local events, mentorship, and partnerships?
• Law and policy career support: Your strategy document noted a gap in engaging legal professionals, despite their huge influence on areas like AI regulation and biosecurity. An EA Law Network or targeted fellowships could really boost impact here. * I noticed that there hasn’t been a focus here as historically there hasn’t been much interest from lawyers – has anyone identified why?
• Corporate EA chapters: You’ve identified that many sympathetic professionals work in large firms with EDI/ESG programs. Could a pilot “EA@Work” model could help build impact-focused groups inside these companies.
• Narrative & communication training: Helping EA-adjacent professionals tell their story better and build bridges with other movements might expand reach and improve collaboration.
• Life transitions as engagement moments: Career breaks, relocation, or sabbaticals could be key moments to re-engage people with EA through retreats or online cohorts.
• Better data on mid-career EA engagement: Developing tools or surveys to track how professionals connect with and stay in EA could inform smarter strategies going forward.

Again, this is from the outside looking in, so maybe all of these have been explored historically and found to be not worth it, or maybe they don't entirely align, but just throwing some ideas out there and wondering if any of these areas could complement the existing ecosystem and open up new avenues for growth and inclusion.