Well-run organizations
Within effective altruism, the most pressing shortage now appears to be well-run organizations. Organizations are, fundamentally, the machines that convert labor and capital into utility. With some effort, one can set up pipelines for capital (GiveWell and Open Philanthropy), and one can also set up pipelines for labor (80,000 Hours). However, setting up a pipeline for organizations is very hard, because the only reason to start one is if it differs from all existing orgs in a critical way. In this way, organizations are like inventions. A dollar is the same as every other dollar; coding jobs at Google are pretty similar to coding jobs at Facebook; but each idea only needs to be invented once, and each organization only needs to be founded once, which makes standardization impossible. The most successful “pipeline” has been Y Combinator, but they only pave over a few “speed bumps”; the large majority of ideas, and almost all the work, still come from the org’s founders. Each set of founders has to take the initiative themselves, so it’s not surprising that there’s a shortage of organizations relative to capital or labor.
First, what is an organization? An org is: a) a group of people who b) have independent leadership and c) pursue a common goal.
“Group of people” is pretty simple. “Independent leadership” means that the group can act on its own, largely independent of any outside agency or supervision. An organization can be a for-profit, a non-profit, an academic research lab, or even an informal social club; it can be independent, or part of a large “umbrella organization”; but it has to make decisions by itself. Especially important decisions are who to hire or fire, and how to make or spend money. Without these, a group should really be considered as part of some larger body.
“Pursue a common goal” is an OK description, but only as a first approximation. Organizational goals can really be divided into three groups: short-range goals, which take less than a year; mid-range goals, which take about one to ten years; and long-range goals, which take a decade or more. Every organization has a wide variety of short-term goals, like making money, gathering support, doing taxes, emptying the garbage, and so on. Most orgs also have many long-range goals. However, successful organizations that are small or new (things change when one becomes large and well-established) tend to have a single, clearly-defined mid-range goal that the organization centers on. For a company, that goal might simply be “sell lots of Product X”. For a political campaign, it might be “elect Joe Smith to Congress”. For a nonprofit, it might be “distribute malaria drugs in Africa”. The mid-range goal really defines what the organization is about.
Organizations should, of course, be well-run; a well-run org is one that can take more money, and more labor, and use it to achieve its goals better. If a car engine is working well, one can put in more gas, floor the throttle, and watch as it zooms off into the distance. If the engine is cracked, on the other hand, this will just make things worse; the machinery to convert fuel into results is broken. One needs to fix the engine before trying to fire it up again. It’s important to remember that the capabilities of an organization can be vastly different (in either direction) from any of the people inside it. The smartest, hardest-working people in the world, if they’re put into a group where everyone hates each other, won’t get anything done. On the other hand, organizations made up of boring people can sometimes work very well. People in a bad organization might do excellent work elsewhere; conversely, employees of a good organization might flop.
How to make an org well-run is a complex, poorly-understood topic, and would require a book to really cover it well. However, it should be easier to tell how well-run a group currently is. Below is a fifteen-point scale for organizational efficacy; it’s designed for groups that are small or new (large, well-established groups operate differently).
Goals 3.
Most of the organization, and all key staff and allies, agree on a single, well-defined mid-range goal. There might be disputes about the best methods for achieving it, but they’re relatively minor.
2.
Most people agree on a core goal, but there might be significant differences in focus or interpretation. Some attempts to achieve the goal might be seen by other org members as unproductive or counter-productive.
1.
Different parts of the org actively pursue separate mid-range goals, but they all share a common “heading” or “theme”. To reduce the risk of fighting, arguments might be made that the different goals support each other, or are “really the same underlying thing” despite apparent differences.
0.
Different people or factions pursue their goals completely independently, with little or no commonality. In an attempt to keep the organization together, the goals might be joined under a very broad banner, like “progress”, “change”, or “justice”.
Growth 3.
The most important metrics are on a steady, long-term growth trend, and the growth is expected to last for the foreseeable future.
2.
The org is clearly growing, but the growth might be bumpy or irregular. The metrics tracked might be proxy or side metrics, rather than direct indicators of goal fulfillment.
1.
No clear indications of growth. The organization might try to make up new metrics it can easily game, rapidly switch metrics, or use other forms of cheating, like lowering the bar for X (for metrics like “number of Xs”). The metrics tracked might be irrelevant to the goal, or there might be no tracking at all.
0.
The organization is clearly shrinking, falling apart, or doing steadily worse over time. Sometimes this is acknowledged; in other cases, efforts are made to deny it or hide it from certain stakeholders.
Leadership 3.
The leaders are indisputably in charge, and their choices in resolving disputes are well-respected. The leadership has broad approval from most of the org, although there might be disagreement on specific issues.
2.
The leaders are clearly in charge, but are often disliked, or considered incompetent. “Us vs. them” disputes sometimes crop up. Many people in the org think they might do a better job of running things.
1.
There are open factions within the organization, which might dislike or even hate each other. People within one faction think it’d be disastrous if other factions ran the org, and might threaten to quit. Much time is spent in fighting between factions, instead of helping the organization directly.
0.
There are no clear leaders. There might be open warfare between factions, with each side refusing to recognize the authority of the other.
Finances 3.
The organization has plenty of money, in both income and reserves, and employees, contractors and suppliers are all paid reasonably well. Strong finances appear sustainable into the indefinite future. In some cases, the organization might have more money than it knows how to spend.
2.
The organization can fully fund operations, but the source of money is somewhat uncertain or irregular. Budget cuts might eventually have to be made, if there’s bad luck, or a temporary funding source dries up without replacement.
1.
There’s a definite shortage of money. Staff might be laid off, or forced to take uncomfortably low salaries. Most operations are done on a shoestring. Funding might depend on special loans, selling assets, or other emergency measures.
0.
The organization is broke, or effectively broke. Bills are left unpaid, and employees stop getting their paychecks. It’s unclear when or if new funding will come in.
Operations 3.
Most everyday tasks are done on time, to normal quality standards. Phones are answered, blogs are updated, taxes are filed, and bills are paid. There are few interruptions to basic operations, which mostly require little attention from management.
2.
Things mostly get done, but there are some gaps. Some areas might be forgotten or delayed. Unexpected problems sometimes crop up, which require special fixes and might “leave people hanging” in the meantime.
1.
Most operations are ad-hoc and helter-skelter, with regular serious problems that impair normal functioning. Many important tasks may be severely delayed, or dropped entirely. Tasks being completed is largely a matter of luck. Payroll, rent, and other critical bills might sometimes be left unpaid.
0.
Operations have been abandoned. Most or all everyday tasks do not get done, or are delayed for indeterminate periods. No one is really responsible for making sure things run smoothly. Large parts of the organization’s work grinds to a halt.