Generally, some people in the non-profits are “multipliers”, while others are merely “additive”. If you are a smart and educated person, you probably don’t want the “additive” role, e.g. one of dozen people who pour the soup at the soup kitchen. Just send some money instead and let someone else do the job; they will do it almost equally well.
But you might be very useful in the “multiplier” role: someone who solves the logistic of soup cooking and distribution, or who speaks with the media, etc. You would be a great multiplier if that role happens to be your profession, but even generally smart people (e.g. someone smart enough to recognize problems and ask online for solutions) could be a big improvement over someone stupid in an important role.
If you want anything done, in any branch of relief work, you will forget the word ‘stupid’ and be offended on others’ behalf if it is used in your presence. It doesn’t even take altruism.
As to multiplier/additive equilibrium, yes, causes need multipliers. What I disagree with is that causes will always benefit, linearly or otherwise, from hiring additives.
You start donating money. There appear hired people. The ‘free’ people gradually leave. You hire more to replace them. Other kitchens, which might not have lawyers in their staff, decide your kitchen can’t play nice. You lose their cooperation.
Result: your own utility goes up, the kitchen’s goes down.
Generally, some people in the non-profits are “multipliers”, while others are merely “additive”. If you are a smart and educated person, you probably don’t want the “additive” role, e.g. one of dozen people who pour the soup at the soup kitchen. Just send some money instead and let someone else do the job; they will do it almost equally well.
But you might be very useful in the “multiplier” role: someone who solves the logistic of soup cooking and distribution, or who speaks with the media, etc. You would be a great multiplier if that role happens to be your profession, but even generally smart people (e.g. someone smart enough to recognize problems and ask online for solutions) could be a big improvement over someone stupid in an important role.
If you want anything done, in any branch of relief work, you will forget the word ‘stupid’ and be offended on others’ behalf if it is used in your presence. It doesn’t even take altruism.
As to multiplier/additive equilibrium, yes, causes need multipliers. What I disagree with is that causes will always benefit, linearly or otherwise, from hiring additives.
You start donating money. There appear hired people. The ‘free’ people gradually leave. You hire more to replace them. Other kitchens, which might not have lawyers in their staff, decide your kitchen can’t play nice. You lose their cooperation.
Result: your own utility goes up, the kitchen’s goes down.