4 ms·

What annoyed me is not the suggestion that the chef is in someway less entitled to the money than other employees, or that he didn't work as hard. It is that i

What annoyed me is not the suggestion that the chef is in someway less entitled to the money than other employees, or that he didn't work as hard. It is that it is just factually wrong. How many great people joined Google when it was an up and coming start up who loved the emerging culture and the idea of having a great chef.

sophacles 15y ago
To expand on your point: I remember that pre-IPO articles about Google always mentioned the great working conditions, including the amazing meals in the cafeteria. Recruitment material from Google touted the chef as a major reason for working there. People talked about Google as the de-facto model for treating your employees well "look they even have a good chef". Given how much that chef played a role in Google's name making, he certainly deserved every penny he made.
scottschulthess 15y ago
In general, in startups, aren't people compensated based on the value their skills provide? I'm not taking anything away from chefs, but Google is an engineering, product, and advertising company, so chef isn't a core skillset and should probably be compensated thusly.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  You are making the same mistake as the original Zynga article does, and the one that this article is attempting to correct: You assume that because a person's job is not in the company's "core skillset" that their contribution must inherently be less than that of an employee whose job is in that "core skillset". This is the incorrect perception that the author here is attempting to fix. From the sound of his experience at early day's in Google, your assumption is flat-out wrong.
  - scottschulthess 15y ago
    All I'm saying is that you have to evaluate each employees contributions and a chef is less likely to be as valuable as an engineer in an engineering company, for a variety of reasons, and then should be compensated accordingly.
    - brown9-2 15y ago
      a chef is less likely to be as valuable as an engineer in an engineering company based on what? You are assuming something about an individual's contribution to a group of people based on nothing but the job title. Based on actual evidence from an early Google employee, this guy's contribution was huge. Will all chefs at company's have similarly large contributions? Not likely. But it doesn't change what this guy contributed and to assume something like this seems really unfair and useless.
      - scottschulthess 15y ago
        a chef is less likely to be as valuable as an engineer in an engineering company based on what? Why do you think engineers get paid more than secretaries, on average? There's your answer.
        brown9-2 15y ago
        Because their skills are in higher demand and the supply of them is lower. But that does not mean that an engineer's contribution is inherently greater than that of a secretary based on nothing but their job title.
        lancewiggs 15y ago
        Meanwhile I've seen and heard of plenty of personal assistants (nobody uses the term secretary any more) share in the upside of the company through substantial annual bonuses. Often these come directly from their boss's personal funds. A great PA, and a great person in any position, will make everyone's life better, and help the people on the front line perform to their capability.
- cubes 15y ago
  You're also missing the fact that joining an early phase startup carries non-trivial risk, and part of the reason early equity grants are large is to compensate for the risk one assumes by joining.
- ja2ke 15y ago
  There are probably more great engineers in the world than great chefs.
- rayiner 15y ago
  Google is an engineering, product, and advertising company, yet their m&a finance analysts are compensated quite well... There are a broad variety of roles within a company.
- LetBinding 15y ago
  What exactly do you mean by compensation? If you mean salary, then the chef has a lower salary than an engineer. If you mean stock options, then employees aren't given stock options based on their skill sets. They are given options commensurate with the risk they undertook. That's why early employees have higher stock options. The Google chef got $20 million worth of stock options not because of his cooking skills, it was compensation for the risk he took, by cooking for the engineers of a firm that might have folded in months. Startup Economics 101.
vaksel 15y ago
yeah...if the chef's contribution was considered to be worth less, then their # of shares was lower to begin with.

sophacles 15y ago

To expand on your point: I remember that pre-IPO articles about Google always mentioned the great working conditions, including the amazing meals in the cafeteria. Recruitment material from Google touted the chef as a major reason for working there. People talked about Google as the de-facto model for treating your employees well "look they even have a good chef". Given how much that chef played a role in Google's name making, he certainly deserved every penny he made.

scottschulthess 15y ago

In general, in startups, aren't people compensated based on the value their skills provide? I'm not taking anything away from chefs, but Google is an engineering, product, and advertising company, so chef isn't a core skillset and should probably be compensated thusly.

brown9-2 15y ago
You are making the same mistake as the original Zynga article does, and the one that this article is attempting to correct: You assume that because a person's job is not in the company's "core skillset" that their contribution must inherently be less than that of an employee whose job is in that "core skillset". This is the incorrect perception that the author here is attempting to fix. From the sound of his experience at early day's in Google, your assumption is flat-out wrong.
- scottschulthess 15y ago
  All I'm saying is that you have to evaluate each employees contributions and a chef is less likely to be as valuable as an engineer in an engineering company, for a variety of reasons, and then should be compensated accordingly.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    a chef is less likely to be as valuable as an engineer in an engineering company based on what? You are assuming something about an individual's contribution to a group of people based on nothing but the job title. Based on actual evidence from an early Google employee, this guy's contribution was huge. Will all chefs at company's have similarly large contributions? Not likely. But it doesn't change what this guy contributed and to assume something like this seems really unfair and useless.
    - scottschulthess 15y ago
      a chef is less likely to be as valuable as an engineer in an engineering company based on what? Why do you think engineers get paid more than secretaries, on average? There's your answer.
      - brown9-2 15y ago
        Because their skills are in higher demand and the supply of them is lower. But that does not mean that an engineer's contribution is inherently greater than that of a secretary based on nothing but their job title.
        lancewiggs 15y ago
        Meanwhile I've seen and heard of plenty of personal assistants (nobody uses the term secretary any more) share in the upside of the company through substantial annual bonuses. Often these come directly from their boss's personal funds. A great PA, and a great person in any position, will make everyone's life better, and help the people on the front line perform to their capability.
cubes 15y ago
You're also missing the fact that joining an early phase startup carries non-trivial risk, and part of the reason early equity grants are large is to compensate for the risk one assumes by joining.
ja2ke 15y ago
There are probably more great engineers in the world than great chefs.
rayiner 15y ago
Google is an engineering, product, and advertising company, yet their m&a finance analysts are compensated quite well... There are a broad variety of roles within a company.
LetBinding 15y ago
What exactly do you mean by compensation? If you mean salary, then the chef has a lower salary than an engineer. If you mean stock options, then employees aren't given stock options based on their skill sets. They are given options commensurate with the risk they undertook. That's why early employees have higher stock options. The Google chef got $20 million worth of stock options not because of his cooking skills, it was compensation for the risk he took, by cooking for the engineers of a firm that might have folded in months. Startup Economics 101.

vaksel 15y ago

yeah...if the chef's contribution was considered to be worth less, then their # of shares was lower to begin with.