When a brand name becomes toxic, a common (and nontransparent) strategy is to hide that company's failures by changing its name. Worse is to create a new company with similar staff and mission without giving any indication of the history of the preceding organization.
Based on staffing, there is some evidence that this is what Paradigm Academy is doing for Leverage Research, as per my answer below. Does anyone have further evidence that can help with answering this question?
See also:
An analysis of personnel is an incomplete and non-definitive answer but ought to be a useful starting point.
Paradigm Academy does not list its team on its website. However, a quick search on Linkedin yields 16 results (13 with public profiles) for people at Paradigm Academy. Of these 13 profiles, 7 include experience at Leverage Research or allied organizations, and a further 4 are well-known to have worked for Leverage Research. Edit: at the request of Julia Wise, I've encoded the names in rot13, so that this comment doesn't broadcast their association to LR to everyone who Googles their names.
Leverage Research, Paradigm Academy and Reserve:
Zvpunry Phemv
Leverage Research and Paradigm Academy
Rzvyl Pebggrnh, Wrna Sna [YE abg pvgrq], Nabalzbhf Crefba [YE abg pvgrq; cersref abg gb or nffbpvngrq jvgu YE]
Paradigm Academy and Reserve:
Xriva J, Urael Svfure, Qnavry Pbyfba
Paradigm Academy only:
Nynaan Xebjvnx, Wnaryyr Jvyyvnzf, Wbanguna Jnyyvf [Frrzrq irel vaibyirq va YE], Zvaql ZpGrvthr [Frrzrq irel vaibyirq va YE]
Paradigm Academy and Bismarck Analysis:
Mnpx Yrenatvf, Oevna Oheaf
Edit, June 2022: I should hope it goes without saying, but please don't harass these folks for having worked at LR.
Moderation note: The original version of this comment contained the names of people the author believed to have worked for the orgs in question. However, the moderators were alerted that multiple people on the list hadn't actually been employed by the organizations they were cited as having worked for. The person who contacted us was concerned that the individuals might be seen by future employers as having hidden some part of their work history because their names might be found on this post after an online search.
After reaching out to the author and not
... (read more)Just saw this. The complaint was apparently that people were listed as having worked for orgs (other than LR) where they only contracted or consulted. But as I recall it, I transcribed these associations directly from Linkedin. So I've reverted the comment, and changed "worked at" to "had experience at" to more precisely match the language of LinkedIn.
My impression is that Paradigm is a spin off from Leverage Research. Where Leverage functions as a think tank for producing research, Paradigm is a training organization, which draws somewhat from Leverage’s research. They seem to have separate staff, though as you say, staff often seem to move between them. You might expect people to move from one to the other if you think it’s a good idea for someone to do some research which then prepares them for teaching that research. Having organisations branching off from each other when some members want to pursue some new mission seems relatively common – to take an example I know about (because I was involved in it), the initial researchers at the Global Priorities Institute were all employees of FHI until GPI split off from FHI.
Hopefully this will be clearer when Leverage launches a website of its own.
[Epistemic status: Talked to Geoff a month ago about the state of Leverage, trying to remember the details of what was said, but not super confident I am getting everything right]
My sense is that I would not classify Leverage Research as having been disbanded, though it did scale down quite significantly and does appear to have changed shape in major ways. Leverage Research continues to exist as an organization with about 5 staff, and continues to share a very close relationship with Paradigm Academy, though I do believe that those organizations have become more distinct recently (no longer having any shared staff, and no longer having any shared meetings, but still living in the same building and both being led by Geoff).
Just saw this. The complaint was apparently that people were listed as having worked for orgs (other than LR) where they only contracted or consulted. But as I recall it, I transcribed these associations directly from Linkedin. So I've reverted the comment, and changed "worked at" to "had experience at" to more precisely match the language of LinkedIn.