5 ms·

Neither. We're a purposeful, for-profit, founder-owned[1] company. Just because we are for-profit doesn't mean profit is our only motivation. It's a false dicho

by swombat 10y ago

Neither. We're a purposeful, for-profit, founder-owned[1] company. Just because we are for-profit doesn't mean profit is our only motivation. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that because you want to make money that must be your only driver. Our view of business is that, much like humans, it can achieve and balance multiple objectives. You want to make money: does that mean you want only that to the exclusion of or above other objectives like finding love, raising children, being a good person, etc? I assume not. We want to make money: does that mean we want only that to the exclusion of or above other objectives like having fulfilling work, working in an open organisation, being respectful of others, etc? No. [1] Though opening up the shares to employees within the next couple of months... it's taken a while to put the right system in place. Options wouldn't work because we have no intention of ever selling the business. Edit: Given your clarified question, I will also add that what we do is to help other tech businesses to raise government funding so they can develop cool tech. Many of them have raised money from investors - I don't think that necessarily means that their only purpose is money (though it's certainly true of some). See argument above.

threatofrain 10y ago
I don't see why paying people less would lead to an improvement in love, family, being a good person, respect, transparency, etc -- unless you're saying that due to pay difference vs market, you'll also expect less work out of them. And money is rarely the actual motivator. Often times, money is the mediator to the things that really motivate people, such as purchasing daycare and enrichment activities, splurging on medical care plans, financial security, etc.
- swombat 10y ago
  > I don't see why paying people less would lead to an improvement in love, family, being a good person, respect, transparency, etc -- unless you're saying that due to pay difference vs market, you'll also expect less work out of them. There's definitely no necessary causal link here. We aim to pay enough that they won't leave because it's too little but not so much that they will stay just because of the salary is too high. It's a pretty hard balance to achieve... not sure if we have. We used to phrase it as "pay people fairly" but then "fairness" is so relative as a concept that it is essentially useless. Having transparent pay does have a clear link with creating a good working environment, in our experience, however - and transparent pay doesn't mix well with having salaries basically based on people's negotiation skills (rather than a more open system like I've described), in backroom deals. > And money is rarely the actual motivator. Often times, money is the mediator to the things that really motivate people, such as purchasing daycare and enrichment activities, splurging on medical care plans, financial security, etc. I wish that were always true... my observation is that some people are in fact motivated by the money, and the status that comes with being paid more than others, more than by the things they can actually do with the money. I find it puzzling, but so it is...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - joshuahutt 10y ago
    > not so much that they will stay just because of the salary is too high. I can imagine a case in which a sufficiently high salary could lead to someone staying in a position for which they have no passion. Still, like you say, it's a delicate balance, and on either side you of not getting good work out of your people. On the low end, you just wouldn't be able to secure high-value candidates. On the high end, you might keep people who have no interest in their roles. I do think the latter case is less likely, though.
  - JamesBarney 10y ago
    I can't find the study, but a South American government(I forgot which country) had the same fears. They wanted better employees and they were afraid if they paid them too much they would get people primarily interested in the money and not the job. But they decided to try it anyway, and lo and behold they were surprised to find the higher played employees were not only better employees but also more motivated intrinsically by the job. I would be curious to find any evidence to the contrary. I try to be very suspicious when my views about how the world works line up with some way that I'm benefited monetarily. For instance it's very hard for me to have a clear and accurate opinion of oursourcing and h1-b's.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      Practical example: my current employer pays me the same in base salary as my previous employer paid me in base salary + duty + overtime. Oh, and they do it without ever telling me I ough to work more. For me this translates to happily walking the extra mile. It also means my wife is ok with me working a bit extra here and there because I love my job. And it means a whole less paperwork and talk about overtime or not.
      - swombat 10y ago
        I would float to you the idea that what you're reacting to is not necessarily the higher wage but the fact your new employer seems to trust you more and perhaps even care about you more.
brianwawok 10y ago
So why would I accept less money from you than my market rate, so that you, the founder, can make more money? At the end of the day there is 1 pie, why should I donate part of my pie to you?
- RussianCow 10y ago
  Because the job is more interesting than the alternatives? Because there is room for major career growth? Because the work/life balance is better? There are tons of reasons it would be preferable to take a lower-paying job. Salary is by far not the only consideration (and for some, not even the most important one).
- orbitur 10y ago
  You would accept if: - You're not broke - You think the work would be more interesting/fulfilling than places that pay more. Of course, I'm sure there's a tipping point where you don't care how interesting the work is. But in my mind you'd use the above criteria if someone is offering you $95k/yr when you're currently pulling $110k/yr.
BuckRogers 10y ago
Ok I accept that answer at face value. Now, is the inverse also true? If I take a job with you- can I work 4 day work weeks and stick strictly to the 8 hour workday? Money is not your only motivator so I don't see why this would be a problem for your employees.
- swombat 10y ago
  We have two people who are on 4-day weeks. It depends on your role(s)... Some are less compatible with part time work.
  - BuckRogers 10y ago
    They get same, equal salary then to the 5-day 40 hour people? Otherwise it would look like you're just profiteering as your main motivator.
    - swombat 10y ago
      Interesting. Why do you think that would be "profiteering as your main motivator" to have as a general principle that as you scale your work you also scale your salary? I'm not sure how that follows. It also seems to be the general principle in all the companies I'm aware of that support part time work, but perhaps there's something I'm missing. I'm all ears.
      - BuckRogers 10y ago
        >Why do you think that would be "profiteering as your main motivator" to have as a general principle that as you scale your work you also scale your salary? I'm not sure how that follows. I'm in 100% agreement with you. So you do pay less to those who work 4 days a week. That's fine and it makes sense. Just confirming. Then I don't even need to ask: you're also saying that for every hour over 8 hours staff is paid overtime? That would be consistent with paying 4-day a week folks less. And would be the nail in the coffin that profiteering isn't your main motivator.
shostack 10y ago
If you are "for-profit, founder-owned" do you likewise plan to have a cap on how much you, the Founder, can make both in salary and equity/dividends/exit event like your employees? I think the sentiment you are seeing here (not necessarily taking a side, just playing devils advocate) is that it might seem a little hypocritical to portray a culture where compensation caps (and ones that seem a little below market rate judging by other comments) are expected when there is no limit to the upside you as the founder might see down the line or from a potential exit down the road. Startups are inherently risky for employees, and while Founders certainly shouldered more of the risk, employees are typically rewarded with equity worth the risk, market rate salaries, or some combination. To not compensate employees in such a way seems like it might be taking advantage of a mindset when you the Founder might not be held to the same standards. Again, if addressing this very issue is part of the opening up of the shares to employees you reference, awesome. This is a very hard problem to tackle and one where it must be damn near impossible to get everyone on board, so I commend you for making the attempt. I'm making lots of assumptions that I hope are simply not the case. Just wanted to clarify and push a bit more on why there seems to be a consistent theme to these comments.

by swombat 10y ago

threatofrain 10y ago

I don't see why paying people less would lead to an improvement in love, family, being a good person, respect, transparency, etc -- unless you're saying that due to pay difference vs market, you'll also expect less work out of them. And money is rarely the actual motivator. Often times, money is the mediator to the things that really motivate people, such as purchasing daycare and enrichment activities, splurging on medical care plans, financial security, etc.

swombat 10y ago
> I don't see why paying people less would lead to an improvement in love, family, being a good person, respect, transparency, etc -- unless you're saying that due to pay difference vs market, you'll also expect less work out of them. There's definitely no necessary causal link here. We aim to pay enough that they won't leave because it's too little but not so much that they will stay just because of the salary is too high. It's a pretty hard balance to achieve... not sure if we have. We used to phrase it as "pay people fairly" but then "fairness" is so relative as a concept that it is essentially useless. Having transparent pay does have a clear link with creating a good working environment, in our experience, however - and transparent pay doesn't mix well with having salaries basically based on people's negotiation skills (rather than a more open system like I've described), in backroom deals. > And money is rarely the actual motivator. Often times, money is the mediator to the things that really motivate people, such as purchasing daycare and enrichment activities, splurging on medical care plans, financial security, etc. I wish that were always true... my observation is that some people are in fact motivated by the money, and the status that comes with being paid more than others, more than by the things they can actually do with the money. I find it puzzling, but so it is...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- joshuahutt 10y ago
  > not so much that they will stay just because of the salary is too high. I can imagine a case in which a sufficiently high salary could lead to someone staying in a position for which they have no passion. Still, like you say, it's a delicate balance, and on either side you of not getting good work out of your people. On the low end, you just wouldn't be able to secure high-value candidates. On the high end, you might keep people who have no interest in their roles. I do think the latter case is less likely, though.
- JamesBarney 10y ago
  I can't find the study, but a South American government(I forgot which country) had the same fears. They wanted better employees and they were afraid if they paid them too much they would get people primarily interested in the money and not the job. But they decided to try it anyway, and lo and behold they were surprised to find the higher played employees were not only better employees but also more motivated intrinsically by the job. I would be curious to find any evidence to the contrary. I try to be very suspicious when my views about how the world works line up with some way that I'm benefited monetarily. For instance it's very hard for me to have a clear and accurate opinion of oursourcing and h1-b's.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Practical example: my current employer pays me the same in base salary as my previous employer paid me in base salary + duty + overtime. Oh, and they do it without ever telling me I ough to work more. For me this translates to happily walking the extra mile. It also means my wife is ok with me working a bit extra here and there because I love my job. And it means a whole less paperwork and talk about overtime or not.
    - swombat 10y ago
      I would float to you the idea that what you're reacting to is not necessarily the higher wage but the fact your new employer seems to trust you more and perhaps even care about you more.

brianwawok 10y ago

So why would I accept less money from you than my market rate, so that you, the founder, can make more money? At the end of the day there is 1 pie, why should I donate part of my pie to you?

RussianCow 10y ago
Because the job is more interesting than the alternatives? Because there is room for major career growth? Because the work/life balance is better? There are tons of reasons it would be preferable to take a lower-paying job. Salary is by far not the only consideration (and for some, not even the most important one).
orbitur 10y ago
You would accept if: - You're not broke - You think the work would be more interesting/fulfilling than places that pay more. Of course, I'm sure there's a tipping point where you don't care how interesting the work is. But in my mind you'd use the above criteria if someone is offering you $95k/yr when you're currently pulling $110k/yr.

BuckRogers 10y ago

Ok I accept that answer at face value. Now, is the inverse also true? If I take a job with you- can I work 4 day work weeks and stick strictly to the 8 hour workday? Money is not your only motivator so I don't see why this would be a problem for your employees.

swombat 10y ago
We have two people who are on 4-day weeks. It depends on your role(s)... Some are less compatible with part time work.
- BuckRogers 10y ago
  They get same, equal salary then to the 5-day 40 hour people? Otherwise it would look like you're just profiteering as your main motivator.
  - swombat 10y ago
    Interesting. Why do you think that would be "profiteering as your main motivator" to have as a general principle that as you scale your work you also scale your salary? I'm not sure how that follows. It also seems to be the general principle in all the companies I'm aware of that support part time work, but perhaps there's something I'm missing. I'm all ears.
    - BuckRogers 10y ago
      >Why do you think that would be "profiteering as your main motivator" to have as a general principle that as you scale your work you also scale your salary? I'm not sure how that follows. I'm in 100% agreement with you. So you do pay less to those who work 4 days a week. That's fine and it makes sense. Just confirming. Then I don't even need to ask: you're also saying that for every hour over 8 hours staff is paid overtime? That would be consistent with paying 4-day a week folks less. And would be the nail in the coffin that profiteering isn't your main motivator.

shostack 10y ago

If you are "for-profit, founder-owned" do you likewise plan to have a cap on how much you, the Founder, can make both in salary and equity/dividends/exit event like your employees? I think the sentiment you are seeing here (not necessarily taking a side, just playing devils advocate) is that it might seem a little hypocritical to portray a culture where compensation caps (and ones that seem a little below market rate judging by other comments) are expected when there is no limit to the upside you as the founder might see down the line or from a potential exit down the road. Startups are inherently risky for employees, and while Founders certainly shouldered more of the risk, employees are typically rewarded with equity worth the risk, market rate salaries, or some combination. To not compensate employees in such a way seems like it might be taking advantage of a mindset when you the Founder might not be held to the same standards. Again, if addressing this very issue is part of the opening up of the shares to employees you reference, awesome. This is a very hard problem to tackle and one where it must be damn near impossible to get everyone on board, so I commend you for making the attempt. I'm making lots of assumptions that I hope are simply not the case. Just wanted to clarify and push a bit more on why there seems to be a consistent theme to these comments.