I think one thing that is being overlooked is that the assumption is that these employees are "underperforming". And many ask, why not just fire them if they ar

I think one thing that is being overlooked is that the assumption is that these employees are "underperforming". And many ask, why not just fire them if they are. I bet they are not underperforming in the "fire them" sense. I think the better word is "undeserving". The story quotes the Google Chef examples. I bet those early Googlers did not think the Chef was "underperforming", but clearly Pinkus thinks the chef is undeserving of $20 million from the Google IPO. So some IT worker, who started early with the company, whose main job is to install new desktops, and fix the printers, and keep the network secure is "undeserving" of $20 million from the Zynga IPO, compared to the lead game designer who designed Cafe World, who Pinkus thinks IS deserving of the same amount. It's more about thinking certain people (janitor, secretary, HR, finance, etc.) are not as valuable to the company as the lead developer or creative director or someone whose work is public facing. And it is despicable.