3 ms·

Ex-Box employee here. I was at Box a little longer than Sutton. I have worked with him for all his 4 years there. He is a good, competent, typical startup guy

by soham 11y ago

Ex-Box employee here. I was at Box a little longer than Sutton. I have worked with him for all his 4 years there. He is a good, competent, typical startup guy who fits better at an early stage. But I think that the way he is (and many others in the valley are) measuring payout is flawed. I hope this audience doesn't generalize and extrapolate Jeff's observations. Especially in the context of Box. For those who have never worked at Box, it's very hard to describe how special that place is. The culture is (or at least was) hands down one of the best I've experienced. The bar to entry is high, both culturally and technically. Everyone has a drive to do the right thing for the customer, and has had a meaningful opportunity to contribute. All of us there have built amazing relationships and grown (tremendously) professionally over the years. Many of us have even gone on to build successful businesses, on the strength of those relationships (e.g. http://interviewkickstart.com http://interviewkickstart.com). THAT is the payout. The fact that Sutton can now hop from one good startup to another in the valley is the payout. The fact that companies look at his resume and trust him to help their IT infra grow from 40 to 1000, is the payout. The fact that he can proudly recount to his friends, that he worked at Box early, is the payout. The fact that he can call upon any relationship from those years and they pickup his phone, is the payout. The fact that he is not worried about his next startup job in the valley anymore, is the payout (that wouldn't have happened had he stayed at IBM). The fact that he can put down payment to a house and raise a family in a decent part of Bay Area, is the payout. And btw, the fact that his IT management helped 1000 of us serve a million+ customers to organize and secure their data, is also the payout. In a startup, you value people and an opportunity to do meaningful things, above everything else. You want to be a part of that small group, that moves the needle in this massively morbid and unpredictable world. Anything else, is bonus.

jacquesm 11y ago
The box gig proved that he could do this, but he already could do this beforehand so that's their gain, not his. And a down payment so you can raise a family is the pay-off? That's a little thin, in most other locations the downpayment on a house would not cost you several years of your life, for that kind of money you could buy the house free of debt. It becomes a pretty hollow proof when you look at it like that.
- toadi 11y ago
  Your first argument is not realy valid. Did he learn how to do it while working in box and succeeded in it? I have started companies and worked as contractor in domains I didn't really have experience in and actually knew if I could succeed. Lucky I did and yes now I have prove for myself and more important to others to validate this. So in conclusion I learned how to do it and was succesful and I validated it. On the down payment don't really have an argument there as SF and Europe differ a lot on pay and housing costs.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > I have started companies and worked as contractor in domains I didn't really have experience in and actually knew if I could succeed. Hm. I'm not sure how to take that. I'm ok with you starting companies without having experience but to hire yourself out as a contractor without experience is a bad thing in my opinion. It does explain why I get to clean up the occasional mess of contractors that over-reach their abilities but that doesn't mean that you are doing anybody a favor with that. Maybe it is indeed luck that you succeeded and it really shouldn't depend on luck, it should depend on your expertise.
    - throwawaymaroon 11y ago
      Who masters "should" here?
throwaway596 11y ago
I'm going to post anonymously, but even so, I'm afraid I have to disagree with how you're looking at this. According to the article he made about $750k over four years at Box ($95k/yr salary + $350k in options total), but would have made nearly 60% more, or $1.2M, working for a more firmly established post-IPO tech company during the same time (say $160k/yr base salary + $40k/yr bonuses + $100k/yr in restricted stock). Still wouldn't have been able to buy a Bay Area house (not sure why you suggest it could), but he would have had all of the other payouts you listed, with basically no downside risk at all. Seems like pre-IPO companies like Box are increasingly a bad deal for the employees. I'm genuinely sorry you guys ended up getting the short end of that stick.
- soham 11y ago
  > I'm going to post anonymously, but even so, I'm afraid I have to disagree with how you're looking at this. Appreciate your disagreement, but why anon? :-) > According to the article he made about $750k over four years at Box ($95k/yr salary + $350k in options total), but would have made nearly 60% more, or $1.2M, working for a more firmly established post-IPO tech company during the same time (say $160k/yr base salary + $40k/yr bonuses + $100k/yr in restricted stock). This was in 2009, when salaries at established companies were not that high. I came from eBay, where neither of the three components were anywhere near what they are today. Also realize that he was in IT, where salaries have never been that good. > Still wouldn't have been able to buy a Bay Area house (not sure why you suggest it could), I didn't say 'buy'. Just down payment. > but he would have had all of the other payouts you listed, with basically no downside risk at all. I prefer to define "downside" with not just money, but with the whole experience. Defining upside/downside with money builds mercenaries; not missionaries. And in a startup, whatever level one gets in, one should be the latter. If you can't be one, then IBM is a better place to be and to stay at. If you are primarily focused on monetary payout, you won't be able to do the best work of your life, which is an opportunity a fast-growing organization provides, which nobody else can. And when a 1000 people do the best work of their life, everyone invariably gets rewarded. At that point, 350K or 500K doesn't matter. What matters, is that you've spent 4 years of your life with incredible people doing incredible work. That will always open far more doors than it'll close. > Seems like pre-IPO companies like Box are increasingly a bad deal for the employees. I'm genuinely sorry you guys ended up getting the short end of that stick. That's the point. We didn't get the short end :-) Even Sutton says, that overall he is fine. Because he too, understands that it's about the whole experience and the future credibility. He is just ranting about one piece - viz. mismatched monetary expectations and doesn't want us to generalize.
baoha 11y ago
This reply is nonsense and bias. The article only measures the finance payout, not all these 'facts'. And by the way, they are not facts, but your speculations. What make you think he couldn't hop job if he stayed at IBM? Is that you to make the decision??

by soham 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

The box gig proved that he could do this, but he already could do this beforehand so that's their gain, not his. And a down payment so you can raise a family is the pay-off? That's a little thin, in most other locations the downpayment on a house would not cost you several years of your life, for that kind of money you could buy the house free of debt. It becomes a pretty hollow proof when you look at it like that.

toadi 11y ago
Your first argument is not realy valid. Did he learn how to do it while working in box and succeeded in it? I have started companies and worked as contractor in domains I didn't really have experience in and actually knew if I could succeed. Lucky I did and yes now I have prove for myself and more important to others to validate this. So in conclusion I learned how to do it and was succesful and I validated it. On the down payment don't really have an argument there as SF and Europe differ a lot on pay and housing costs.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > I have started companies and worked as contractor in domains I didn't really have experience in and actually knew if I could succeed. Hm. I'm not sure how to take that. I'm ok with you starting companies without having experience but to hire yourself out as a contractor without experience is a bad thing in my opinion. It does explain why I get to clean up the occasional mess of contractors that over-reach their abilities but that doesn't mean that you are doing anybody a favor with that. Maybe it is indeed luck that you succeeded and it really shouldn't depend on luck, it should depend on your expertise.
  - throwawaymaroon 11y ago
    Who masters "should" here?

throwaway596 11y ago

I'm going to post anonymously, but even so, I'm afraid I have to disagree with how you're looking at this. According to the article he made about $750k over four years at Box ($95k/yr salary + $350k in options total), but would have made nearly 60% more, or $1.2M, working for a more firmly established post-IPO tech company during the same time (say $160k/yr base salary + $40k/yr bonuses + $100k/yr in restricted stock). Still wouldn't have been able to buy a Bay Area house (not sure why you suggest it could), but he would have had all of the other payouts you listed, with basically no downside risk at all. Seems like pre-IPO companies like Box are increasingly a bad deal for the employees. I'm genuinely sorry you guys ended up getting the short end of that stick.

soham 11y ago
> I'm going to post anonymously, but even so, I'm afraid I have to disagree with how you're looking at this. Appreciate your disagreement, but why anon? :-) > According to the article he made about $750k over four years at Box ($95k/yr salary + $350k in options total), but would have made nearly 60% more, or $1.2M, working for a more firmly established post-IPO tech company during the same time (say $160k/yr base salary + $40k/yr bonuses + $100k/yr in restricted stock). This was in 2009, when salaries at established companies were not that high. I came from eBay, where neither of the three components were anywhere near what they are today. Also realize that he was in IT, where salaries have never been that good. > Still wouldn't have been able to buy a Bay Area house (not sure why you suggest it could), I didn't say 'buy'. Just down payment. > but he would have had all of the other payouts you listed, with basically no downside risk at all. I prefer to define "downside" with not just money, but with the whole experience. Defining upside/downside with money builds mercenaries; not missionaries. And in a startup, whatever level one gets in, one should be the latter. If you can't be one, then IBM is a better place to be and to stay at. If you are primarily focused on monetary payout, you won't be able to do the best work of your life, which is an opportunity a fast-growing organization provides, which nobody else can. And when a 1000 people do the best work of their life, everyone invariably gets rewarded. At that point, 350K or 500K doesn't matter. What matters, is that you've spent 4 years of your life with incredible people doing incredible work. That will always open far more doors than it'll close. > Seems like pre-IPO companies like Box are increasingly a bad deal for the employees. I'm genuinely sorry you guys ended up getting the short end of that stick. That's the point. We didn't get the short end :-) Even Sutton says, that overall he is fine. Because he too, understands that it's about the whole experience and the future credibility. He is just ranting about one piece - viz. mismatched monetary expectations and doesn't want us to generalize.

baoha 11y ago

This reply is nonsense and bias. The article only measures the finance payout, not all these 'facts'. And by the way, they are not facts, but your speculations. What make you think he couldn't hop job if he stayed at IBM? Is that you to make the decision??