I don't want to get into this whole discussion about if the employees do or do not deserve the company, but I thought I'd take up a different angle. >...leavin

I don't want to get into this whole discussion about if the employees do or do not deserve the company, but I thought I'd take up a different angle. >...leaving it to your heirs makes more sense from an evolutionary point of view. I think you can make a strong argument that giving the company to your heirs whole-hog is a poor idea (unless those heirs are involved in the company personally). They will almost certainly be called upon to make decisions about the company, and without expertise they'll probably do a middling job of it. It seems quite sensible that, especially in your heirs are unfamiliar with the business, that the employees should have their self-interest piqued in some way when you pass it on. After all, if you devote 20% of the company to employee equity, and the company performs 30% better as a result, your heirs will be better off because of it. It seems like the people who work at the company are most qualified to run it, and that giving them some incentive to run it well is in everyone's interest. So I wouldn't say it's clearly a bad choice, "from an evolutionary point of view," for either the heirs or the company. Also, this is completely parenthetical, but this sort of thing does not look good (even if you're right): >My logic is undeniable, how can you oppose anything I say?