

Founders: You don't own your employees - jevanish
http://jasonevanish.com/2013/04/14/founders-you-dont-own-your-employees/

======
ben1040
This is important enough to me that I have left money on the table so as to
not work at a place that requires my signature on an invention assignment
agreement.

What I do for fun or profit on my own time is my own business, and the fact
that I have a work structure that allows me to do this keeps me happy enough
to come back to work the next morning.

~~~
jedberg
One of the most refreshing things I found when I started at Netflix was that
they actually specifically call out in the employment agreement that what you
do on your own time is your own, even if you use your work computer to do it.
As long as it isn't direct competition, side projects are explicitly
encouraged.

~~~
skmurphy
CA law says that what you do on your own time with your own materials is
yours.

------
speg
I get paid a salary to work X hours a week. If you want me to be "all in" and
go the extra mile, you need to align my interests with that of the company —
through equity or other means.

~~~
michaelochurch
Actually, I think profit sharing (properly structured) is a lot better than
equity. I wrote about this, here:
[http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-
macle...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-
macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/)

Equity allotments for employees in typical VC-funded startups are pathetic,
and have to be that way because VCs set such a small option pool.

Also, payment occurs at profitability (and is immediate and continuous from
that point) rather than liquidity so there's an incentive for employees and
founders both to do this unstylish (in VC-istan) thing called _actually
building a great business_.

I agree with what you are saying, though.

~~~
hkmurakami
_> Actually, I think profit sharing (properly structured) is a lot better than
equity._

Towards the end of last year, I spent quite a few hours thinking about a
compensation structure that wouldn't completely screw over non-founders in a
start-up -> small size company setting.

A "profit sharing" style set up is exactly what I came up with after several
days of considering the subject, with departing employees selling their
"shares" back to the company at some pre-arranged multiple of earnings or book
value.

------
abbottry
I think side projects are very important. It's funny, a lot people have a hard
time distinguishing between free time and work, without realizing that for
some of the best engineers out there, they are the same. Just because my
laptop is open, doesn't mean I have to be working. In the evening, on the
weekends, or whatever you consider your free time to be, YOU go to movies, go
out for dinner, go to the gym, go skiing, etc. But, as someone who really
likes to build things, the time I would be doing those things (yes, I do those
as well), I'm writing code.

The key is to hire people you trust to make good decisions when it comes to
side projects, and the amount of time they spend on them.

But also on the employers, have you created and maintained an environment that
someone wants to work for?

One of the things I think about most often while hiring, because it is true
for me is that, I would be half the developer I am without side projects. My
college degree and job I had out of college taught me nothing but concepts and
theory, and how to be micromanaged. I WANT to hire people that have side
projects because it means they ENJOY what they do, they dont just do it
because someone is paying them to.

I recently wrote about this myself: [http://ryanabbott.com/side-projects-
learning-experience-vs-d...](http://ryanabbott.com/side-projects-learning-
experience-vs-distraction)

------
seivan
Side projects means that the person in question is investing hens own time
learning (more often than not, new) stuff. They don't want their employes
learning stuff. Fair enough.

~~~
niggler
"investing hens own time"

what is 'hens'?

~~~
jacobparker
[http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/hen_s...](http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/hen_sweden_s_new_gender_neutral_pronoun_causes_controversy_.html)

~~~
thirsteh
..or just use "their"

------
michaelochurch
I've written a lot about this in my blog series on the Gervais Principle (21
posts, and 0.8 being worked on).

First, you have the MacLeod hierarchy:

    
    
        "Sociopaths" (upper management): strategic + dedicated + NOT subordinate
        "Clueless" (middle management): dedicated + subordinate + NOT strategic
        "Losers" (workers): strategic + subordinate + NOT dedicated
    

MacLeod Sociopaths aren't all bad people, and Losers are not losers in the
sense of being undesirable or unpopular people (in fact, it's often the
opposite) but because low-end employment is a losing deal.

Someone who has all 3 is a Protege, but that's rare and conditional. If you
don't invest in someone's career, a strategic person will _never_ be
subordinate and dedicated both. He'll either optimize for comfort (Loser
route) or personal yield/glory (Sociopath route).

Work cultures tend to be defined based on what they value most.

    
    
        Subordinacy uber alles: Rank culture (typical corp. environment)
        Dedication uber alles: Tough culture (e.g. Enron, Microsoft's stack-ranking)
        Strategy uber alles: Self-executive culture (e.g. Valve)
        Balance of the 3: Guild culture (rare, not seen in startups)
    

VC-funded startups tend to be all-Clueless. The Sociopaths are VCs and
executive implants who aren't really part of the company. Startups can't stand
to have Losers, since they tend to require explicit management and the rules
are too ill-defined at that point. So they often end up with the tough
culture, which is the opposite of how startups wish to market themselves.

In rank culture, all you need to do to remain employable is get along with
your manager; but in tough culture, there's an unwritten rule that everyone
must be 100% dedicated to work. Total submission of effort replaces
subordination. It's not actually that way-- people aren't actually willing to
work 80+ hours without personal benefit-- but people who flagrantly break the
rules get shown out.

------
frozenport
Yes, but you may be able to convince them that you do!

------
grenobli
Usually you need a team focused on just one job to get done - otherwise
there's no 100% commitment to your project. You don't want your employees to
switch between priorities.

~~~
lutze
"First, telling someone what they should and shouldn’t do in their free time
is a tremendous insult to them and their personal judgment. It’s also
incredibly short-sighted."

Read that. Twice. Now, add these words of pearly wisdom to the end: "It's also
none of your fucking business."

It's their time, not yours. If your employees aren't giving you 100% at work,
you've every right to complain. But it's absolutely none of your business what
they do outside of work.

~~~
grenobli
That's not what I've meant - I don't allow working after hours in my
companies. But I prefer a team, which at work focus just on my project. Side
projects interfere with each other and that can be deadly to productivity at
work. I wouldn't ever try to tell anybody what to do with their free time,
relax man :)

~~~
lutze
Given the context of the blog (free time), it's only natural to assume you
were talking about that too, since you don't explicitly state otherwise.

I'm perfectly relaxed by the way. I swore for emphasis, not out of emotional
engagement.

