Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Or more likely management didn’t care whether she looked for new employment.

I’ve been through three of four of these situations and every time there is a list of positions that management deems important enough to grant options. It was always clear how not being on that list is perceived and that people might quit and some consideration was made to not risk losing some they considered important enough.

I bet it wasn’t the author’s title but the author. The COO knew who she was and didn’t think she was important enough to grant options. Saying it was because she had the wrong title seems like a coward move.

I never felt good being on or off the list or making the list. I think it’s better to award some amount to all early staff. One of the myths and legends of tech that I loved hearing as a kid was the Microsoft secretary who is not a millionaire.

Options grants like this describe the character of a company. I don’t think it’s impossible to work in an org like this, but it should be a factor in choosing to stay or choosing to join.




This is a good interpretation of the event as I understand it.

Culturally, it would be a good move to grant all employees before x date a token number of units so they felt validated. $1k worth of units to a few dozen employees is a rounding errors worth of dilution but would pay many intangible dividends to the culture.

I do think, ultimately, the bulk of incentive equity should go to those most likely to make significant contributions.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: