For whatever it's worth, the only (real) difference between the blog entry and the op-ed that Business Insider asked to run is this closing paragraph that I added at their suggestion:
Some of the specifics of our model may or may not be a fit — we appreciate that uniform compensation is an unusual luxury, and we know that transparency of compensation can be a painful change to effect in an organization that has no history of it (or worse, has secretly been rewarding similar work vastly inequitably). But we do believe — fervently — that compensation reflects a company's values, and that it's absolutely essential that companies elucidate those values. If your company has no formal values, there's a tremendous opportunity to define them. This opportunity is not without peril, however, as my Monktoberfest 2017 talk on "Principles of Technology Leadership"[0] describes: Mistaken or crooked organizational values can be more damaging than absent or implicit ones. Don't define your values in terms of aspirations, aphorisms, slogans, or (because it apparently has to be said!) memes. Rather, they should be an honest expression of the shared values that bind the organization. Once your true values are elucidated, reevaluate your compensation in light of them. This isn't easy to do (especially because it will be a foregone conclusion that any reexamination will not result in the reduction of anyone's compensation), but your employees — current and future — will thank you for it.
I few times now, I heard the recommendation that founders should split the equity evenly, because it's all about execution and you should keep everyone motivated to give their best.
Oxide seems to extend this principle to their employees.
>, I heard the recommendation that founders should split the equity evenly, [...] Oxide seems to extend this principle to their employees.
Fyi... The original blog post says they didn't (or plan to) split equity evenly among all employees:
>As for how equity is determined, it really deserves its own in-depth treatment, but in short, equity compensates for risk -- and in a startup, risk reduces over time: the first employee takes much more risk than the hundredth.
> It’s all about execution and you should keep everyone motivated to give their best.
If your goal is to keep everyone motivated, issuing equity evenly to all employees is far from ideal. More
ideal is issuing equity proportionally based on actual contribution to a company’s value. You probably also want to issue more equity to employees who are taking more risk by working at the startup. Either way, I think you’ll find that founders get more equity.
I hear this sentiment a lot, and its proponents usually don't spend any thought on disproving other views. Such as, maybe it's better to have everyone motivated well, instead of having a few people excessively motivated while the rest trudges along.
Maybe it depends on the field? Do you need superstars or are you only as fast as you slowest team mate?
And maybe, but I barely dare say it out loud here, maybe compensation has less to do with performance and more to do with who eats dinner/cracks a beer with whom. In this case, how would the motivation argument even hold?
I don't know which one is true. I wouldn't try to sound too convinced of any one of these unless I knew the situation of the business very well.
17 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 47.6 ms ] threadIs there a version of this article on a site that isn’t the computer science equivalent of punching someone in the face repeatedly?
Some of the specifics of our model may or may not be a fit — we appreciate that uniform compensation is an unusual luxury, and we know that transparency of compensation can be a painful change to effect in an organization that has no history of it (or worse, has secretly been rewarding similar work vastly inequitably). But we do believe — fervently — that compensation reflects a company's values, and that it's absolutely essential that companies elucidate those values. If your company has no formal values, there's a tremendous opportunity to define them. This opportunity is not without peril, however, as my Monktoberfest 2017 talk on "Principles of Technology Leadership"[0] describes: Mistaken or crooked organizational values can be more damaging than absent or implicit ones. Don't define your values in terms of aspirations, aphorisms, slogans, or (because it apparently has to be said!) memes. Rather, they should be an honest expression of the shared values that bind the organization. Once your true values are elucidated, reevaluate your compensation in light of them. This isn't easy to do (especially because it will be a foregone conclusion that any reexamination will not result in the reduction of anyone's compensation), but your employees — current and future — will thank you for it.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc
Edit: formatting because HN (still!) doesn't support any kind of real block quoting.[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18162599
https://oxide.computer/blog/compensation-as-a-reflection-of-...
Oxide seems to extend this principle to their employees.
Fyi... The original blog post says they didn't (or plan to) split equity evenly among all employees:
>As for how equity is determined, it really deserves its own in-depth treatment, but in short, equity compensates for risk -- and in a startup, risk reduces over time: the first employee takes much more risk than the hundredth.
If your goal is to keep everyone motivated, issuing equity evenly to all employees is far from ideal. More ideal is issuing equity proportionally based on actual contribution to a company’s value. You probably also want to issue more equity to employees who are taking more risk by working at the startup. Either way, I think you’ll find that founders get more equity.
I hear this sentiment a lot, and its proponents usually don't spend any thought on disproving other views. Such as, maybe it's better to have everyone motivated well, instead of having a few people excessively motivated while the rest trudges along.
Maybe it depends on the field? Do you need superstars or are you only as fast as you slowest team mate?
And maybe, but I barely dare say it out loud here, maybe compensation has less to do with performance and more to do with who eats dinner/cracks a beer with whom. In this case, how would the motivation argument even hold?
I don't know which one is true. I wouldn't try to sound too convinced of any one of these unless I knew the situation of the business very well.