I worked closely with Kat for a year or so (2018-2019) when I was working at (and later leading) Charity Science Health. She’s now a good friend.
I considered Kat a good and ethical leader. I personally learned a lot from working with her. In her spending and life choices, she has shown a considerable moral courage: paying herself only $12K/year, dropping out of college because she didn’t think it passed an impact cost-benefit test. Obviously that doesn’t preclude the possibility that she has willfully done harmful things, but I think willfully bad behavior by Kat Woods is quite unlikely, a priori.
I would also like to share my experience negotiating my salary with Kat when I first joined Charity Science Health, i.e., before we were friends. It was extremely positive. She was very committed to frugality, and she initially offered me the position of Associate Director at a salary of $25K/year, the bottom end of the advertised salary range. We exchanged several long emails discussing the tradeoffs in a higher or lower salary (team morale, risk of value drift, resources available for the core work, counterfactual use of funds, etc.). The correspondence felt like a genuine, collaborative search for the truth. I had concluded that I needed to make at least $45K/year to feel confident I was saving the minimum I would need in retirement, and in the end we agreed on $45K. Subsequently Kat sent me a contract for $50K, which I perceived as a goodwill gesture. My positive experience seems very different from what is reported here.
It implies at least a 2x multiplier on salaries for equivalent work. This practice is linked with gender pay gaps, favoritism, and a culture of pay secrecy. It implies that other similar matters, such as expenses, promotions, work hours, and time-off, may be similarly unequal. And yes, there is a risk to team morale.
It risks discriminating against people on characteristics that are, or should be, protected from discrimination. My risk of value drift is influenced by my political and religious views. My need for retirement savings is influenced by my age. My baseline for frugal living is influenced by my children and my spouse and my health.
It shows poor employer-employee boundaries. I would be concerned that if I were to ask for time off from my employer, the answer would depend on management’s opinion of what I was planning to do with the time, rather than on company policy and objective factors.
In general, if some employees are having extremely positive experiences, and other employees are having extremely negative experiences, that is not reassuring. Still, I am glad you had a good experience.
(Crossposted from EA Forum)
On an earlier discussion of Nonlinear’s practices, I wrote:
I would also like to share my experience negotiating my salary with Kat when I first joined Charity Science Health, i.e., before we were friends. It was extremely positive. She was very committed to frugality, and she initially offered me the position of Associate Director at a salary of $25K/year, the bottom end of the advertised salary range. We exchanged several long emails discussing the tradeoffs in a higher or lower salary (team morale, risk of value drift, resources available for the core work, counterfactual use of funds, etc.). The correspondence felt like a genuine, collaborative search for the truth. I had concluded that I needed to make at least $45K/year to feel confident I was saving the minimum I would need in retirement, and in the end we agreed on $45K. Subsequently Kat sent me a contract for $50K, which I perceived as a goodwill gesture. My positive experience seems very different from what is reported here.
For me your comment is a red flag.
It implies at least a 2x multiplier on salaries for equivalent work. This practice is linked with gender pay gaps, favoritism, and a culture of pay secrecy. It implies that other similar matters, such as expenses, promotions, work hours, and time-off, may be similarly unequal. And yes, there is a risk to team morale.
It risks discriminating against people on characteristics that are, or should be, protected from discrimination. My risk of value drift is influenced by my political and religious views. My need for retirement savings is influenced by my age. My baseline for frugal living is influenced by my children and my spouse and my health.
It shows poor employer-employee boundaries. I would be concerned that if I were to ask for time off from my employer, the answer would depend on management’s opinion of what I was planning to do with the time, rather than on company policy and objective factors.
In general, if some employees are having extremely positive experiences, and other employees are having extremely negative experiences, that is not reassuring. Still, I am glad you had a good experience.