3 ms·
Innovating at a big company without the control over the rewards (and a contract to back it up) is sort of a lame bargain. You end up with a low downside risk (
by thinkingkong 3y ago
Innovating at a big company without the control over the rewards (and a contract to back it up) is sort of a lame bargain. You end up with a low downside risk (cash) but your upside opportunity is whatever you've pre-negotiated. Even within sales, if you bring home a huge contract you're more likely to get fired and forced to arbitrate your 'bonus'. The entire system is a joke.
If you really want to do innovation and you don't need the resources of a huge company to do so, and you're risk adverse then... gosh I don't know what to say.
- jshen 3y agoThis hasn't been my experience. I spent over a decade at startups, a handful of years at a big research lab, and over a decade at a big company. I've made far far more money from working at the big company than I did at the startups, and one of them had an exit. Unless you are a founder, you will get less in most exits than you do getting bonuses and stock options at a big company once you've climbed the ladder a little bit.
- Barrin92 3y ago>If you really want to do innovation and you don't need the resources of a huge company to do so Practically anything at the cutting edge of research is incredibly capital intensive. So you're either loaded to start with or you have to spend most of your time collecting money rather than doing research. If you're a researcher who cares primarily about their work, the freedom you have by working for a large company or a government institution is immense. Personally I will take a generous paycheck and resources provided for me so I can do actual work over trying to add zeroes to my own bank account. Many scientists make this trade consciously.