4 ms·

> When your CEO has so many places to focus his attention, giving him more equity to remain the preferred child makes a lot of sense as a mutually beneficial ag

> When your CEO has so many places to focus his attention, giving him more equity to remain the preferred child makes a lot of sense as a mutually beneficial agreement. Alternatively, you could simply condition the compensation on spending a certain amount of time/attention on Tesla. That seems like a much more straightforwards solution of keeping Musk's attention were actually a concern. Perhaps that would warrant a further bump in compensation, but in exchange you get certainty.

AlchemistCamp 3y ago
Basing CEO compensation on time spent instead of performance is a horrible idea, IMO.
- aw1621107 3y ago
  Basing CEO compensation only on time spent may seem like a bad idea, sure, but there's nothing that prevents you from stipulating both performance and time/attention metrics. You may have to offer more equity, but that's all part and parcel of negotiations.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
if you want someone's attention so that they catch you fish, it is better to pay based on fish, not time.
- aw1621107 3y ago
  The two aren't mutually exclusive, and the question here is return on investment, especially if you know said fisherman has strong interests in other ventures. If you're already paying someone to catch you fish, are you going to get more fish by paying them even more or by paying them more and asking them to devote time/attention to catching fish as well?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >are you going to get more fish by paying them even more or by paying them more and asking them to devote time/attention to catching fish as well? I think that is a really good question. If someone is paid $1 million per fish, can you expect more paying extra for time OR fish. Why give them anything at all? That's what I thought was really interesting in the parent post. Does the fisherman have leverage? Are their only options to keep the old deal, or stop catching fish out of spite?
    - aw1621107 3y ago
      > If someone is paid $1 million per fish, can you expect more paying extra for time OR fish. Why give them anything at all? It comes down to what the payor wants and what they think would provide the best return on their money. If the fisherman's performanace is good enough, perhaps the existing compensation plan is good enough. If you want more, then it becomes a more interesting question, and I don't think there would be a single right answer. > Does the fisherman have leverage? Are their only options to keep the old deal, or stop catching fish out of spite? Of course the fisherman has leverage. It isn't an all-or-nothing situation, either - they can offer a greater return for a greater price, offer to keep the existing arrangement, threaten to reduce time/attention, threaten to walk away altogether, or some other offer. And the other party would be free to make their own counteroffers to try to get the result they want.

AlchemistCamp 3y ago

Basing CEO compensation on time spent instead of performance is a horrible idea, IMO.

aw1621107 3y ago
Basing CEO compensation only on time spent may seem like a bad idea, sure, but there's nothing that prevents you from stipulating both performance and time/attention metrics. You may have to offer more equity, but that's all part and parcel of negotiations.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

if you want someone's attention so that they catch you fish, it is better to pay based on fish, not time.

aw1621107 3y ago
The two aren't mutually exclusive, and the question here is return on investment, especially if you know said fisherman has strong interests in other ventures. If you're already paying someone to catch you fish, are you going to get more fish by paying them even more or by paying them more and asking them to devote time/attention to catching fish as well?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >are you going to get more fish by paying them even more or by paying them more and asking them to devote time/attention to catching fish as well? I think that is a really good question. If someone is paid $1 million per fish, can you expect more paying extra for time OR fish. Why give them anything at all? That's what I thought was really interesting in the parent post. Does the fisherman have leverage? Are their only options to keep the old deal, or stop catching fish out of spite?
  - aw1621107 3y ago
    > If someone is paid $1 million per fish, can you expect more paying extra for time OR fish. Why give them anything at all? It comes down to what the payor wants and what they think would provide the best return on their money. If the fisherman's performanace is good enough, perhaps the existing compensation plan is good enough. If you want more, then it becomes a more interesting question, and I don't think there would be a single right answer. > Does the fisherman have leverage? Are their only options to keep the old deal, or stop catching fish out of spite? Of course the fisherman has leverage. It isn't an all-or-nothing situation, either - they can offer a greater return for a greater price, offer to keep the existing arrangement, threaten to reduce time/attention, threaten to walk away altogether, or some other offer. And the other party would be free to make their own counteroffers to try to get the result they want.