aka, equity compensation. Because i sure aint gonna consider it a perk if a CEO (or owners) to get richer, while i just get praise for making the success!
>Bob Porter: Don't- don't care?
>Peter Gibbons: It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation?
Before I started working at MASSIVE CORP I thought Office Space was a comedy.....
My Boss arrived at work in a brand new Ferrari.
I told him: "Wow that's a nice car".
He replied:
"If you work hard, put all your hours in, and strive for excellence, I'll get another one next year"
I was at a startup company that in my opinion got a great idea and with enough focus, we could have been successful. I always tried to think about the product, the impact, the roadmap, the quality... And after some time I realized that I just annoy the founders and I care and worry more about things then they do. So I decided to care about half as much as they did and in the meantime look for another job.
Today, I work at a big corporation, I was again motivated to be able to change things, improve things. The feature I recently worked on was just put on a roadmap with a ridiculous deadline, our work is blocked by like 5 different backend teams around the country, and somehow I should bend over backwards to deliver on time?
Keeping your motivation is hard when everything around you is trying squash it.
And I am not even sure it's a problem. Of course I wouldn't say this at my next job interview, but in reality, if you are motivated, most often you will get disappointed really fast. On the other hand, when you just go in to work, do a reasonable amount of effort, then you can work better with others with less stress, and in the end, who cares about "those few extra units"?
You can be motivated as much as you want, but tomorrow you can be replaced. Your company gets acquired, and you happen to be in the "wrong" office. Bye bye. Or whatever other reason. Covid! Bye bye again.
We are just minions with a good technical knowledge. And if you don't step up and get closer and closer to CTO level you'll be "just" working on features, sporadically "exceeding the goals set" and get rewarded for that. Yay. Get the most out of it and that's it. If that's enough for you, so be it.
Learn, develop, make shit happen, iterate.
Do you want to have a major impact? It takes hours and stress from your own personal life (I couldn't stress this out more), things don't come easily.
If you want to have power you need to be your own boss. And even then I wonder how much power you truly have.
If it falls in your lap, take it. But don't count on it. Leverage the extra money under the assumption that you're out in three months. It's position formed of a certain mix of competence, pedigree, communication ability, and politics. Tenuous.
That's exactly my MO. The extent to which many people start to overidentify with their job is almost comical. If they are lucky it may actually pay off at least. But more likely than not they are just deferring the inevitable conclusion that work is at the end of the day just a (hopefully enjoyable) waste of time so you can afford living.
That said, life is very short. Big companies are a great way to make pretty good comp in exchange for dealing with a ton of dysfunction. I know people who don’t get bothered by it at all - they separate themselves and their 8-10 hours a day and compartmentalize.
If you can’t do that, though ...
The only reason to work for mega corps once you’ve got enough in the way of assets that you are already dialed in for the normal retirement age is because you’re vesting out a package.
What you might be referring to is to have workers who _didn't_ put in capital, but still get given long dated options, along with their salary. This is funded by investors. So - the problem here is that there's no downside for the workers. If due to bad luck, they lose out on the value of the options, but still get paid their salary in the mean time, and yet get the upside of the long dated options should the company succeeds. The only people to lose out are the investors - who had to give up some of their shares (as options), for almost zero upside. I dont think it will work - no investor is going to be that sucker.
Technically it's a Public Limited Company (albeit one wholly owned by a trust for the benefit of its employees), but it does run an internal democratic system.
Profits are distributed to employees as bonus, which is a uniform percentage of their salary. 2021 is the first year they won't distribute a bonus (because of Covid), but historically it's been between 5% and 20%.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership
That also means that every employee effectively has the same stake in the company - those high up in management, for example, don't have a lop-sided number of shares compared to those on the (both literal and metaphorical) shop floor.
JL employees also elect colleagues to hold the management to account, and appoint people to the Board and Trust. How many "traditional employers" allow that to happen?
I saw it in the theater when it came out and thought it was funny but obvious over-the-too satire. I was at a small company at the time.
About two months ago I decided to watch something and it popped up on the suggested items. I figured what the he’ll and watched it for the second time ever.
I work for a megacorp and have for most of the last decade.
If anything, office space is too subtle. Instead, I realize now that my reality would be so insane as to be considered unrealistic and too exaggerated. Even “Disrupted” doesn’t actually capture the insanity, dysfunction, etc.
I have joked/threatened for a few years that I would write a book about this place but as I compile an outline I keep asking myself if anyone who hadn’t already had the same experience would believe any of it. The mountain of mediocrity, sure, but the intrigues, scheming, backstabbing, insane and systemic incompetence in every domain? No way.
I suppose the extrinsic motivation would not be noticeable immediately but should be noticeable over time (ie. taking a 10 year view) as you would (hopefully) earn more than peers who just do the minimum to avoid being fired. If you get laid off, I'd guess you'd also have an easier time finding a new job as well.
Should the opposite be true as well? Startup employees going home at 5 and fighting unreasonable schedules?
Not all companies are the same, and not all companies are startups. I'm back working at the same company which was my first job in tech. Not for the second time, not the third either, but the fourth time now. I was first hired there over 22 years ago in tech support. It's always been a good place to work, that takes care of it's employees (even if it can't pay a huge amount for some positions, there's always a lot of recognition that everyone is needed to make it work, and everyone is appreciated), and I never left because I disliked the company or the work, but because I wanted to focus on school, or explore a new opportunity, or work with family, etc. Our customers love us, and my fellow employees generally like working here, to my knowledge.
They don't expect me or my fellow employees to work past our normal hours (except when on call, or it it's a night-op for sysadmins, which you can generally just take chunks of time off the next day if you like). Yet people do work a little later to finish stuff, or check in to make sure something they did earlier in the week isn't causing problems over the weekend. Because they care about not making problems for their fellow employees, and not adversely affecting our customers, which have a high opinion of us.
All that is a long way of saying that not every company is a startup or behaves as one. People in silicon valley are somewhat conditioned to look for the startups and make that gamble, but there are other choices, and they aren't always nearly as bad as people have been led to believe. Many jobs that are considered shit work can be rewarding if approached the right way. Even IT or programming at a bank can be rewarding if you're lucky enough to have management that mostly gets out of the way and if you cultivate a relationship with the people (the other employees in this case) that you're serving, and see how you make their life better an easier (and there are always opportunities for this, if you pay attention).
I can't pay my rent in recognition or appreciation though.
There's nothing wrong at all with just seeking maximum income at all times, but that's normally to some end (happiness, security etc): if what you're seeking is partially served by a given job, then you often aren't really gaining much by sacking that job off for one that pays more
To... keep working... at your underpaid job?
Then, if your definition of “underpaid” is “lower salary than one could get elsewhere”, well, we are all underpaid. But it matters only if your salary is not enough to cover your lifestyle. Bearing that in mind, I’d rather be paid less to work in a nice working environment than better paid in a stressful professional nightmare. I’ve done my share of nightmares already.
Yes, it does not replace money, but for some people it is worth more to feel happy at work than to receive a bit more money.
If the extra money is enough you may have enough to become your own boss after some time spent being miserable.
I've been quite miserable whenever I worked as an employee (I carefully picked the companies I worked for and I don't really have many complaints - I just can't stand company politics, power plays and stupid decisions from above) but I used my time as an employee to save some money and use paternity leave to build a family. Also, as a sleepless parent, my brain is not in top shape and I'm ok with doing what I need to do to collect a paycheck.
Now, those 5 years being miserable will translate to buying a property in cash somewhere with nice weather, lowering our expenses tremendously (more than half is rent right now) and allowing us to live off some almost passive revenue stream (think, 1 man micro-saas). We're planning to use the free time to build more products and edge ourselves against the risk of not being able to afford our lifestyle and have to go the employee route again.
That's fine. I wasn't making some argument that you should work for someone that's like family, just that there's a whole spectrum between "caring about my company stops at shift end" and "my identity is bound up in this place I work".
I think most people would agree that money isn't the only thing most people care about when choosing a job. There's plenty of people here that would balk at writing better missile targeting code, or exploits for a government, or spying software marketed to spouses, or even writing video games that trigger compulsive behavior. For some people, dislike of the work outweighs the fact that they can get paid very well doing it.
FWIW, some of my time in the past was spent working for my brother at his IT company, which also employed our other brother. It's great working with family until it isn't, and when it isn't, it really isn't. I don't recommend working for family most the time, and I don't think people should treat their coworkers as family. I do think people should try to find a job where they enjoy the people they are around and are proud of the work they do, if they can afford to choose a job like that. If you're going to spend close to half your waking hours doing something, I think it's much more fulfilling and better for your mental health to care about more than the amount you're paid if you can afford to.
It depends. If working 10-hour Saturdays for a year results in me buying a yacht, you can be sure that actual real money bought the happiness that came with my yacht.
It's all a tradeoff and for some things you are unlikely to get the big payoff without a risk involved. Determining where your personal boundaries are with the risk-taking is an individual decision.
TLDR; you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.
Great. Now you have to pay for maintenance, staff, and insurance. So you need to keep making that amount of money or you’ll lose it. The added stress and expenses make it a bit of a poisoned gift.
> TLDR; you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.
Most people who play don’t win, either.
It doesn't matter how much you like a specific company if they don't have a need for your skills or your skills don't provide enough to live off of. I'm not saying abandon your tech career to work as a janitor at your favorite company, just that there are lots of other choices for someone in tech other than working at a startup. Some pay okay, some pay quite well. Some may not pay well at all. What someone thinks is worth it is obviously up to them and their circumstances.
You know, managment will become accustomed to that. My first scuffle with US “work ethics” came when I spent a year in a fairly well-known company and yeah, everyone was enthusiastic and passionate and... management expected no less than total dedication and zeal from their underlings.
How does it go? “The beatings will continue until morale improves”
After I left I heard of more grief and drama, burn outs and bitter separations.
Eh, I'm sure they can, but I think I wasn't communicating that it isn't all people and it isn't all the time. It's not the same people always staying late. It's sometimes that someone stays to finish that last bit or to stop at a good point, but people also take off early routinely to counter that, and feel free to run errands in the middle of the day as needed. It's less that management is getting extra time out of a lot of people than it is that people feel flexible with their time, and willing to give a little here and take a little there, to make sure other people aren't left in the lurch, and neither are they.
The guy that hired me was someone like you, but was kicked out and replaced with a more ambitious gentleman who must have promised to squeeze us more efficiently.
The problem is that if you look beyond the rhetoric and the propaganda, employee well-being are only second-order to measurable and targetable outputs. There always will be someone that promises to achieve objectives in some other manner, and given enough time they will get their chance and ruin everything
Absolutely.
First, overwork doesn't lead to more productivity for knowledge workers. You get to pay that piper one way or another in the end.
Second, back in the day, if your company was acquired for multiple billions, you had a pretty good shot at a life-changing infusion of cash.
Nowadays, stock options given to employees often end up being worth nothing, even on a successful exit.
Why work hard for a slim chance at bupkis?
This seems unlikely.
Exits and IPOs have much greater valuations now than they did ‘back in the day’ so far more early employees end up with a significant infusion of cash.
How many super early employees are able to hang on for a decade until IPO, or have the cash to exercise their options before they leave?
IMO this should be illegal. It's your property and they should not be allowed to bar it's sale.
The first part of this can be false. If you're 1/2 way to billions IPO then your options can easily be a year or more of salary to exercise.
About the second part if the company gives you that as a signing bonus you're still on the hook to the IRS for the bonus so now you're 10s of 10000s deep on an illiquid position.
The advice giver is super-early, not the target of said advice.
But I agree that the advice is best suited for super-early people.
It's usually done for early employees who join before multiple rounds of funding occur.
Many "successful" exits are actually acqui-hires, where a larger company acquires a dead or dying company for its talent. Often the product from that company is immediately shutdown, or at least shelved and no longer actively developed.
Other "successful" exits pay some percentage back to the recent preferred shareholders. Earlier investors are not made whole. Common shareholders generally get nothing.
Founders will still spin these "exits" a positive because they didn't have to shut down. The reality is the venture was a failure. Employees got jobs... that they could've had anyway.
One word: dilution
I have never seen any research showing net negative productivity for any job for under 60 hours a week of work. Overwork sucks but if you have evidence that it’s bad for productivity please cite it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2015/01/26/wor...
> the hours at which output is a maximum is at 67 and at 64, respectively. In fact, there are a few cases in which actual observations on hours of work exceed 67 and 64 meaning that, in these instances, average observed hours were at levels where the estimated marginal product of hours is negative!
The Productivity of Working Hours John Pencavel April 2014
I believe this is in line with what I wrote
> I have never seen any research showing net negative productivity for any job for under 60 hours a week of work.
In repetitive work of course more time is always gonna be more productive, with diminishing returns. Until the worker/slave mind or body breaks at least.
Mind you, I'm not saying the same doesn't apply for knowledge workers. Just that this specific articles doesn't provide evidence for knowledge workers.
I imagine that there will be more science being done for productivity on knowledge workers once there's some decent way of measuring productivity for knowledge workers.
There is no reason to believe knowledge workers are any different than manual workers here. Your productivity turns negative when you make so many mistakes that you’re destroying value, not creating it. The article may be only weak evidence for knowledge workers but it certainly isn’t no evidence. Other forms of evidence while not rising to the standards of publication certainly don’t point to 40 hours work a week being optimal for productivity of most knowledge workers. Physicians, professors at research institutions, top tier lawyers, all these people work insane hours.
There is no evidence that working less than 60 hours a week is better for productivity, anywhere, just a bunch of people wishing really hard.
One thing to consider about knowledge/skill workers vs unskilled labor is that most complex systems are house of cards style situations where a single mistake can both destroy a network effect of value, but also take several orders of magnitude of time and effort to detect and rectify the actual issue.
Introducing a subtle, but value destroying, bug into a system can do value damage to the N systems it interconnects with, and can lead to a near total loss of the whole system (eg: drop table). Of course there are safeguards that can help avoid this like backups, but still the point is a carpenter wouldn't make the whole house worthless by a misplaced nail.
Manual laborers are people no less than accountants or mathematicians.
Seriously? Of all things, something so obvious like this needs needs citation?
The actual research on this is scarce to the point of non-existence. It may actually be non-existent for knowledge workers, at least published work.
YMMV but the only time I ever experienced the myth that "working over 40 hours a week is the norm" was when I started working at a US-based company.
And the only reason unpaid overtime was the norm was that managers, specially skip-level management, did a piss-poor job establishing sane goals based on realistic time-frames, and typically threatened to fire people pretty much each and every single week if they did not met those unrealistic goals.
Strangely enough, everywhere else people managed to do their job within the 40hours work week.
Even in France, where the base legal hours are only 35 hours a week, intellectual/upper professions in a full-time position work an average of 43 hours a week.
That's the average which includes women, who work 10% less (in terms of number of hours worked) than men. If you only consider men, you reach an average week of 45 hours for those professions.
The US's post-WW2 dominance doesn't explain why layers of lower management from the US stationed abroad insist in scheduling 3 weeks worth of work into 1 week in spite of being fully aware of how long the task takes, and afterwards boast to their leadership that their non-US teams outperformed US-based teams by a long shot while leaving out that team some non-US developers had to pull consecutive all-nighters to pull it off.
Irish lawyers and doctors work well over 40 hours a week on average too. I feel pretty confident the same is true in finance. Tax professionals in Spain do too. That about exhausts my personal knowledge of working hours in Europe but I kind of doubt management work less than 40 hours a week anywhere, even the civil service.
> and typically threatened to fire people pretty much each and every single week if they did not met those unrealistic goals.
The secret to greater American productivity and hence wealth. People just work more hours.
Just because something is considered "normal" does not mean that it's actually efficient, or "good".
Certain job sectors, like social jobs, have been chronically overworked and underpaid for pretty much as long as they existed. Even during non-pandemic times burn-out, depression, and suicide rates of people working in healthcare have been way above those of the average population, particularly the people who actually do all the "grunt work" like nurses.
A situation has become much worse during this pandemic, yet remains largely ignored.
> It sure looks like people who work more than 40 hours a week on average do better than those who don’t.
Tell that to people working in logistics, those people delivering you packages the next day. Ask them how many hours they work and how "well off" they are financially in exchange for giving up large parts of their private life.
As a matter of fact, only two out of the 4 professions you listed are actually considered overworked to a degree of burnout: Physicians and attorneys [0].
The vast majority of the rest of the list is populated by professions that are generally not considered well-earning even when working massive hours: Nurses, social workers, teachers, school principals, police officers, public accounting, fast food or retail.
Most of these professions would have a very lasting and visible impact if they were gone, it would make society overall objectively worse to be missing them, yet somehow society at large still refuses to properly recognize that trough proper financial compensation even with many hours worked at very important tasks.
[0] https://stress.lovetoknow.com/Which_Professionals_are_Prone_...
In some cases people want to work, to some extent, because their job is more pleasant than their free time activities, but it cannot be considered "normal".
Specialist doctors are not staying late on a Friday or working the weekend. While a walkin clinic doctor might be pushing 60 hours.
An average business owner might spend more than 40 hours a week. The most successful business owners hire people to work for them while they enjoy their lives.
8 hours of tired programming gets less done compared to a well rested 3 hour work session.
This isn’t true. Obstetricians work 24 hour shifts as standard. Babies don’t get born 9-5.
If you come into the ER on a Friday night with severe brain damage you’re seeing the neurologist immediately. If you have a punctured lung you’re not waiting for the pulmonologist to clock in at 9AM.
Nearly all medical specialties work shift patterns or are required to be on call.
Annual Work Hours Across Physician Specialties
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...
Pop article in magazine for physicians
> 2018 Average Physician Hours Worked Per Week Physician Type Average Physician Workweek Age 45 years or less 54.73 hours Age 46 years or more 49.87 hours Male physicians 51.89 hours Female physicians 50.46 hours Practice owners 51.96 hours Employed physicians 53.73 hours Primary care physicians 50.64 hours Physician specialists 51.76 hours
https://www.locumleaders.com/physician-news/the-average-phys...
salaried employees are generally not paid by the hour, and it's rare that 40 hours a week (or any maximum) is specified in a high compensation contract. if I know that a job won't be "9-5", I'll factor that into whatever base salary I ask for
Ha! You're totally right. I'd forgotten about that. He acts out what everyone wished they could do. :)
The solution is to put the option strike deadline at 10 years in the future which is iirc what YC recommends. It's possible for these terms to be employee-friendly.
I wonder if this is why mid-life startups that stop growing start to feel "stale". Too many people who just want their money and to get out of dodge.
I once worked with a guy who had been with an 8 year old startup for around 7 years. The company had stopped growing at around the 200 million dollar run rate and he’d stopped really trying to do much other than get by. Someone once directly asked why he stayed and it turned out he had a million+ options. He was never bad, never good, and never took risks or did anything that would make him stick out.
6 years later the startup is still private and hasn’t grown (it’s probably smaller today than it was then). When I think back on the experience there were a number of people who felt strangely trapped into working there and didn’t give a crap.
I worked at one other company doing the options game and saw the same thing - anecdotally I never saw this at companies giving RSUs. As a manager, it would be tough to part ways with someone if you know your stripping them of a million dollars in equity.
Isn't another solution to make perks not variable, and clearly outlined in the contract as part of the employment package? You only have to worry about what your employees will do if you take away a perk when it's actually something you can consider taking away. If you treat it as part of the guaranteed compensation, you'll budget for it accordingly just like your employees do.
If you want to give bonuses, like the parent said make it a flat guaranteed amount, or tie it to a number based on company performance that people can see and make plans for (profit sharing with published numbers at regular intervals, preferably more often than it's paid out).
Isn't this functionally equivalent to "pay better base salaries"?
To be honest I've never seen 13th payments offered in dev careers, so when I hear some of my Scrum friends demanding it I'm quite surprised since I know they make comparable amounts to me.
Short term, if they need to attract talent or die they better attract talent. People getting pissed off when startup gets big is a "future problem".
Bonuses are a form of variable compensation, not a perk.
Is also why I think it is silly for startups to provide too many perks. It sets obvious precedent and will upset more folks when you stop. Find ways to invest in the company so that success is it's own perk. If the company truly has more, work that into raises where you clearly tie the income to the success of the company.