3 ms·

Being on the receiving end of poaching is simply a failure to compete in arenas beyond compensation. Not only must you compensate your talent at the top of the

by rl3 6y ago

Being on the receiving end of poaching is simply a failure to compete in arenas beyond compensation. Not only must you compensate your talent at the top of the market and then some (including generous equity), but you must give your employees an amazing work environment with excellent work/life balance, while providing something for them to work on that motivates them on an ideological level. When any part of this aegis cracks, poaching has the potential to ravage your ranks. I would say that in the case of especially valuable or world-class talent, it's the founder's responsibility to know as much as they can about that person, and to truly pitch them on a level that fully aligns across all dimensions of that person's life. Give them not only excellent comp, but fulfillment and purpose that is congruent or even symbiotic with their personal lives and overall ambitions. Deep down, most people aren't pawns that you can simply acquire with a number and expect the highest quality work from.

yourapostasy 6y ago
> Deep down, most people aren't pawns that you can simply acquire with a number and expect the highest quality work from. In practice, it is extremely rare to find managers who effectively practice this. When you do, it's pretty amazing to watch in action. I've only seen one such manager out of hundreds I've encountered consulting. That manager's team members won't leave the team for even 2X pay increases, because they figure the additional anticipated stress and job insecurity is not worth it. The amount of trust between that manager and the individual team members is higher than I've ever seen elsewhere, and that manager redefined for me what was possible with people skills superpowers. RDF doesn't even begin to describe it, and this field was accomplished without Jobs' infamous tantrums.
- rl3 6y ago
  Thanks for that, it's encouraging to hear. While I've no experience in the corporate world proper, as a solo founder 7 years into the same project I've a similar game plan with respect to talent, and just hope one day to have the privilege of giving it a go. Further (albeit slightly outdated) context in the link below.[0] My scenario is more to do with how to put together a dream team, and convince people to join that team. With world-class talent, you have to consider that some of the people you want to hire are already quite wealthy and/or famous. Therefore, if you want any hope of landing let alone retaining them, you have to dig deep and discover what motivates them, and understand what aligns with their existing pursuits and goals. If I ever do get the chance to hire any of these people, I'm not that worried about the sell. I've probably had countless imaginary conversations with each of them over the past few years. To even have the opportunity to talk to any of these people would be an honor, so the notion of somehow mistreating them, or failing to both compensate and appreciate them to the maximum extent possible just doesn't compute. That extends to the non-wealthy, non-legendary hires as well; if anything it's a healthy model to approach how you treat all people in your employ. As an aside, one of the biggest problem I face with respect to hiring (minus funding and, you know, actually getting off the ground) is: who to approach first? Dream team assembly dynamics are very delicate from a game theoretical point of view, and I've begun to think this is perhaps the wrong way to approach thinking about the problem. Elizabeth Holmes infamously used the "If I get person X, then getting person Y will be easier." strategy to great effect, but she was a complete fraud. There's a few ideas I have here that aren't fully elucidated, but probably could be thought of as consensus-based offers. Pitch people individually and in a personalized fashion, but with no expectation they accept the offer unless certain conditions are met, such as others on the prospective dream team agreeing to the same understanding, or even making it contingent on funding itself. Assembling a ~50 person team pre-funding certainly is putting the cart before the horse in so many ways, but I think it can be done. The look on the VC's faces would something. "Here is the vision, here is the prototype, here's a team of 50 exceptional people—some of whom are legends—that have agreed to build this thing together, contingent on funding. Just need the money." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22429827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22429827
ghaff 6y ago
>Not only must you compensate your talent at the top of the market and then some (including generous equity) How is that actionable advice for companies competing with the richest companies in tech? You can indeed (hopefully) do the other things you say but you may simply not be able to afford to compensate them at top of market if that market includes Google or Netflix.
- rl3 6y ago
  That's where equity comes in. However, equity is only worth something in any practical sense if it's fair and the employee truly believes in what they're doing. Most startups offer joke equity that's subject to dilution games with salaries below market, while claiming they hire only the best.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Post dot-com though, options (now mostly RSUs) are hardly funny money any longer. So bets that my company will go up a whole lot more than Google to the degree that it covers $100K/year comp difference are still bets. It's fairly clear to me (who doesn't (and haven't applied to) work at a West Coast tech giant) that if you can get a job at such, you will make more money. That's just the way things are. Of course, there are reasons to work elsewhere, but making the most money is probably not one of them.
    - rl3 6y ago
      Yeah, I completely agree equity is no replacement for proper salary. Just saying it's a really effective tool when combined with ideological motivation to fend off the unlimited pockets of FAANG-scale companies.

by rl3 6y ago

yourapostasy 6y ago

> Deep down, most people aren't pawns that you can simply acquire with a number and expect the highest quality work from. In practice, it is extremely rare to find managers who effectively practice this. When you do, it's pretty amazing to watch in action. I've only seen one such manager out of hundreds I've encountered consulting. That manager's team members won't leave the team for even 2X pay increases, because they figure the additional anticipated stress and job insecurity is not worth it. The amount of trust between that manager and the individual team members is higher than I've ever seen elsewhere, and that manager redefined for me what was possible with people skills superpowers. RDF doesn't even begin to describe it, and this field was accomplished without Jobs' infamous tantrums.

rl3 6y ago
Thanks for that, it's encouraging to hear. While I've no experience in the corporate world proper, as a solo founder 7 years into the same project I've a similar game plan with respect to talent, and just hope one day to have the privilege of giving it a go. Further (albeit slightly outdated) context in the link below.[0] My scenario is more to do with how to put together a dream team, and convince people to join that team. With world-class talent, you have to consider that some of the people you want to hire are already quite wealthy and/or famous. Therefore, if you want any hope of landing let alone retaining them, you have to dig deep and discover what motivates them, and understand what aligns with their existing pursuits and goals. If I ever do get the chance to hire any of these people, I'm not that worried about the sell. I've probably had countless imaginary conversations with each of them over the past few years. To even have the opportunity to talk to any of these people would be an honor, so the notion of somehow mistreating them, or failing to both compensate and appreciate them to the maximum extent possible just doesn't compute. That extends to the non-wealthy, non-legendary hires as well; if anything it's a healthy model to approach how you treat all people in your employ. As an aside, one of the biggest problem I face with respect to hiring (minus funding and, you know, actually getting off the ground) is: who to approach first? Dream team assembly dynamics are very delicate from a game theoretical point of view, and I've begun to think this is perhaps the wrong way to approach thinking about the problem. Elizabeth Holmes infamously used the "If I get person X, then getting person Y will be easier." strategy to great effect, but she was a complete fraud. There's a few ideas I have here that aren't fully elucidated, but probably could be thought of as consensus-based offers. Pitch people individually and in a personalized fashion, but with no expectation they accept the offer unless certain conditions are met, such as others on the prospective dream team agreeing to the same understanding, or even making it contingent on funding itself. Assembling a ~50 person team pre-funding certainly is putting the cart before the horse in so many ways, but I think it can be done. The look on the VC's faces would something. "Here is the vision, here is the prototype, here's a team of 50 exceptional people—some of whom are legends—that have agreed to build this thing together, contingent on funding. Just need the money." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22429827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22429827

ghaff 6y ago

>Not only must you compensate your talent at the top of the market and then some (including generous equity) How is that actionable advice for companies competing with the richest companies in tech? You can indeed (hopefully) do the other things you say but you may simply not be able to afford to compensate them at top of market if that market includes Google or Netflix.

rl3 6y ago
That's where equity comes in. However, equity is only worth something in any practical sense if it's fair and the employee truly believes in what they're doing. Most startups offer joke equity that's subject to dilution games with salaries below market, while claiming they hire only the best.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Post dot-com though, options (now mostly RSUs) are hardly funny money any longer. So bets that my company will go up a whole lot more than Google to the degree that it covers $100K/year comp difference are still bets. It's fairly clear to me (who doesn't (and haven't applied to) work at a West Coast tech giant) that if you can get a job at such, you will make more money. That's just the way things are. Of course, there are reasons to work elsewhere, but making the most money is probably not one of them.
  - rl3 6y ago
    Yeah, I completely agree equity is no replacement for proper salary. Just saying it's a really effective tool when combined with ideological motivation to fend off the unlimited pockets of FAANG-scale companies.