A New Framework for Career Impact (Part 1)
Many conversations among my friend group right now are revolving around how we can make the most “social impact” in our careers. Whether we work for a big tech company, an international NGO, a political campaign, or in the healthcare system, we are considering how we can build our careers around making the greatest possible social impact however we define it.
I’m writing two blog posts to outline my thoughts on this topic. The first will provide a high-level framework for how to conceptualize the social impact one is making in a given job; the second will carry the thinking in the first forward to discuss impact over the course of a career.
These posts are meant to start a conversation and are by no means the final word. I welcome your comments and thoughts.
—
There are many variables to consider when thinking through whether one is in a position to make a social impact: whether we’re making enough money to give away to the causes we care about; whether we’re working for a corporation versus a nonprofit; whether we are deploying financial capital as investors or managing programs on the ground; or whether we are working inside or outside of “the system.” All of these variables are important. And that’s before we discuss how “impact” should be measured in the first place (a discussion for another place and time that has no easy answers).
However, I think there are three variables we should consider above the others to build a framework for measuring the marginal social impact we make in any given job.
The first is the net social good and harm that arises from an individual performing well in their job. The calculation of “net social good” is almost entirely subjective, and organizational missions and values can be misleading. There are two considerations to make: how one measures success in their job; and how much marginal impact a person can make over “any other person” who has the job.
An example: McDonald’s poisons our youth through greasy burgers and McFlurries, no matter how delicious. Yet, there are few departments with as much power over global supply chains — and methane emissions, which ultimately contribute to climate change — than the operations and sustainability departments at McDonald’s. A person in one of those roles can claim to be making a social impact if they are successful in their job — especially if they believe they are capable of delivering more social impact than the “average” person in their shoes.
Once someone understands whether they are in a position to contribute “net social good,” there are two additional variables to consider: the size of an organization and the proximity of an individual to stakeholders directly impacted by the solution to the social problem in question. Both are positively correlated to social impact, but negatively correlated to each other.
In English: the larger the organization, the greater the social impact of an individual’s decision because it will change outcomes for a greater number of people. However, that individual is farther away from the stakeholders they are seeking to help and may not have the operational expertise to execute the solution they are either funding or proposing. Examples of these careers include impact investors, middle corporate managers, and consultants.
Likewise, the more proximate an individual is to a given problem — or to the people impacted by that problem — the greater social impact they can make on individual lives. However, they do not have the institutional leverage or financial resources of a larger organization to make impact at scale. Examples of careers in this space include teachers, nurses, program managers at nonprofits, and early stage social entrepreneurs.
Assuming one is making a net positive social impact in their job, if we plot these two variables against each other — organizational size and proximity to the problem — we get a graph that encapsulates the tradeoffs of any given job.
Point #1 is along the line of maximum impact an individual can make given an organization’s size and proximity to impacted stakeholders. The shaded area represents the net impact an individual would make in that job. (Note: the above sketch appears to be biased towards “medium-sized” organizations — that is unintentional.)
Point #2 reflects the maximum impact that an individual can make in a job far away from the impacted stakeholders but at a large scale — think impact investing analyst or the average product marketer at LinkedIn (where I sit).
Point #3 reflects the maximum impact that an individual can make in a job at a small scale, but close to impacted stakeholders — think science teacher or a nurse practitioner.
Point #4 reflects someone who is prevented from maximizing their impact. There are many ways that impact can be minimized — bad bosses and shifting organizational priorities among them.
To place yourself accurately on this graph either in your current job or a job you’re choosing, ask yourself the following questions:
- Is my job making a net positive social impact? Do I belong on this graph?
- How large is my organization? (vertical axis)
- How proximate am I to the problem/the people impacted by the decision? (horizontal axis)
- Am I making as much impact as I can through this job? If not, why not?
My second post will use this framework to discuss how to grow one’s capacity to make an impact by shifting the blue line — the outer limit of impact — to the right.
Looking forward to continuing the conversation.
