Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Cillian_, SteveThompson
2 min read 6

31

Application announcementsCoachingTraining for Good
Frontpage

Summary

Training for Good is now offering 1-to-1 coaching for EA professionals. 

Successful applicants will have a 3 month coaching relationship with a professional coach from the EA ecosystem: Daniel Kestenholz, Tee Barnett or Steve Thompson. This will entail four sessions, each 60 minutes, spaced roughly 3 weeks apart.

Our goal is to help you clarify your aims, reduce self-imposed friction, and to help you improve your leadership and relationship skills. We’ll help you debug your plans and increase your overall contribution to the world while taking care of yourself.

Fees for the coaching will be means-based and you will decide the amount you pay (between $0 and $175).

Apply here by 25th February.

The Coaches

We have brought together a small panel of coaches from across the community who have a variety of backgrounds. 

  • Daniel Kestenholz: “I help people in the community face difficult challenges and make their biggest contribution to the world while taking care of themselves. My clients include staff at CEA/80K, Charity Entrepreneurship, CLR/EAF, FHI, Rethink Priorities, and OpenAI”.
     
  • Tee Barnett: “Working with me is about having a ‘personal strategist’ that helps guide the discovery, navigation and refinement of deep perceptual constructs that meaningfully affect your personal and professional life. I’m currently trialling my coaching with leaders of organisations in Effective Altruism (Rethink Priorities, HLI, Nonlinear Fund, Fortify Health, Centre for Long-Term Resilience, etc.) 
     
  • Steve Thompson: “I have coached and trained mid and senior level leaders for ~10yrs working as a leadership development consultant in the corporate sector.  I’m interested in helping you simply and plainly identify the areas of your work and life that, if improved, would make the most difference for you and the world”.

The Content

Coaching differs from mentoring or advising in that it is primarily led by the client. The coach is there to help you think through the aspects of your life and work that you most want to focus on and to do so with a higher degree of accountability and investigation than you likely generate alone. So the “content” of coaching sessions therefore is not a set of topics, but rather you’ll be looking at how you think, and how that affects what you achieve.

Fees & Application

Training for Good is organising this initiative, vetting the participants, and measuring the impact. 

Fees for the coaching will be means-based and you will decide the amount you pay. TFG will subsidize this coaching to ensure it is available to those who’ll most benefit from it, regardless of their financial circumstances. Those with budgets from their employers will be expected to pay $175 per session, but those who are paying directly can choose to pay what you like on the basis that it’s the maximum (i.e. it’s not prohibitive) you can afford while being reflective of the value of the coaching and the coach's time and experience. 

Apply here by 25th February.

31

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments6


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Miranda_Zhang6
0
0

This is super cool and seems to fill a current gap in the community (e.g., career advising is more one-off). Whom is your target audience/do you think is most likely to benefit?

Reply
Cillian_2
0
0

Thanks for the question Miranda! We think coaching could be beneficial to a lot of different people. A few groups we had in mind that might particularly benefit from this coaching include:

  • EAs leading organizations (both non EA and EA orgs)
  • EAs managing (small) teams within EA orgs / EA chapters
  • EAs outside of EA orgs that work in roles where human interaction is very important for relative success. Examples might include policymaking, grantmaking or some E2G roles
  • Early career EAs currently on high impact career trajectories (eg. on track to enter an 80k priority path)

However, I'd encourage anyone who's on the fence or that doesn't quite fit into the above groups to just go ahead and apply - or feel free to reach out to me directly cillian [at] trainingforgood [dot] com and we can chat about it

Reply
Edward Tranter1
0
0

I have a similar question to Miranda! More specifically, how do group organizers fit into your target audience/thoughts regarding scope for benefit?

Reply
Cillian_1
0
0

We'd be pretty excited to see applications from group organisers. I think it's a really important role and imagine that coaching could help multiply the impact of a lot of organisers!

Reply
Will Bradshaw4
0
0

How is this different from just applying to those coaches directly?

Reply
slg1
0
0

As far as I understand sessions will be fully subsidised by TfG. If you can’t afford them you can choose to pay 0$—unsure if this is standard among EA coaches.

I also think centralisation of psychological services might be valuable as it makes it easier to match fitting coaches/coachees and assess coaching performance.

Reply
More from Cillian_
43
Talos Network needs your help in 2025
2 authors
· · 6m read
0
0
48
Tarbell is hiring for 3 roles
Cillian_
· · 6m read
1
1
142
Introducing Training for Good (TFG)
3 authors
· · 13m read
11
11
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Relevant opportunities
44
World Malaria Day 2025: what's new, what's not
Toby Tremlett🔹
· · 2m read
0
0
7
80,000 Hours is hiring for an Engagement Specialist
2 authors
· · 7m read
3
3
46
Open Phil's Farm Animal Welfare team is hiring a Program Assistant!
LewisBollard
· · 2m read
0
0
View more