5 ms·

please explain

by borism 17y ago

please explain

kevinpet 17y ago
Being any more generous than you need to be to attract good people and get them to work hard is being too generous, hence, not a good business decision, hence, the founders would not be "good" founders.
- borism 17y ago
  by "founders weren't too generous with stock options" author obviously meant that employees felt left out of the party after company has succeeded. I wouldn't say not caring about employee equity participation is a good founder quality. In fact this whole thread just goes to show that Garmin fails miserably at motivating it's engineers to this day.
  - hga 17y ago
    "felt (mostly) left out of the party" is perhaps accurate, although the engineer in question was one of the four founders (see my longer recent item in this thread). Based on what happened to him I'd have to wonder if later employees got much more than beer money.
allyt 17y ago
The founder (or any employer) has a responsibility to shareholders to pay employees as little as possible. An employee has responsibility to themselves (and their family) to ask for as much pay as possible. Negotiation is about finding a middle ground between those interests. Holding an employer responsible for figuring out what a given employee will be happy with is strange, to say the least.
- borism 17y ago
  > The founder (or any employer) has a responsibility to shareholders to pay employees as little as possible. that's why there is equity compensation - something that Garmin didn't provide adequately
  - allyt 17y ago
    that's why there is equity compensation And as little equity as possible, for identical reasons. An employee is responsible for making sure the terms agreed on are ones they're happy with, not an employer. An employer has a legal obligation to shareholders to minimize the costs of her business, one in direct conflict with "being generous in compensation" to her employees.
    - hga 17y ago
      Although in this case we have an engineer who was all three of employer, shareholder and employee.... And you're wrong about "minimize costs" per se. The employer has a obligation to maximize shareholder returns, for which a simplistic application of the "minimize costs" principle is seldom a solution.
      - allyt 17y ago
        Right - you don't maximize shareholder returns by being generous with handing out stock. IMHO, being generous handing out stock is just stupid.

please explain

by borism 17y ago

please explain

Being any more generous than you need to be to attract good people and get them to work hard is being too generous, hence, not a good business decision, hence, the founders would not be "good" founders.

borism 17y ago
by "founders weren't too generous with stock options" author obviously meant that employees felt left out of the party after company has succeeded. I wouldn't say not caring about employee equity participation is a good founder quality. In fact this whole thread just goes to show that Garmin fails miserably at motivating it's engineers to this day.
- hga 17y ago
  "felt (mostly) left out of the party" is perhaps accurate, although the engineer in question was one of the four founders (see my longer recent item in this thread). Based on what happened to him I'd have to wonder if later employees got much more than beer money.

allyt 17y ago

The founder (or any employer) has a responsibility to shareholders to pay employees as little as possible. An employee has responsibility to themselves (and their family) to ask for as much pay as possible. Negotiation is about finding a middle ground between those interests. Holding an employer responsible for figuring out what a given employee will be happy with is strange, to say the least.

borism 17y ago
> The founder (or any employer) has a responsibility to shareholders to pay employees as little as possible. that's why there is equity compensation - something that Garmin didn't provide adequately
- allyt 17y ago
  that's why there is equity compensation And as little equity as possible, for identical reasons. An employee is responsible for making sure the terms agreed on are ones they're happy with, not an employer. An employer has a legal obligation to shareholders to minimize the costs of her business, one in direct conflict with "being generous in compensation" to her employees.
  - hga 17y ago
    Although in this case we have an engineer who was all three of employer, shareholder and employee.... And you're wrong about "minimize costs" per se. The employer has a obligation to maximize shareholder returns, for which a simplistic application of the "minimize costs" principle is seldom a solution.
    - allyt 17y ago
      Right - you don't maximize shareholder returns by being generous with handing out stock. IMHO, being generous handing out stock is just stupid.