21–30 of 265 posts
This is why its always possible to hire great developers - because some companies and hiring managers think that people should be not just great developers, but willing to jump through ridiculous hoops to work there. If you want to hire people, drop the attitude of "we don't want people who aren't willing to prove how much they want to work here". Instead, give them every reason to want to work for you.
This is why its always possible to hire great developers - because some companies and hiring managers think that people should be not just great developers, but willing to jump through ridiculous hoops to work there. If you want to hire people, drop the attitude of "we don't want people who aren't willing to prove how much they want to work here". Instead, give them every reason to want to work for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why they don't hand out options on a more continuous base the way executives get them. It seems everything is geared towards staying 1-4 years and then jumping ship.
Many (if not most) companies do stock refreshes annually, don't they?
Here's an example - say I'm hired with 1000 units of stock over four years. Each year I receive a refresher grant of 250 units of stock, again vesting over four years. Once I reach Year 4, my stock compensation stabilizes, assuming my refreshers remain the same (I'm am obviously grossly simplifying - you could be promoted and get larger grants, the company could do badly and your dollar value be significantly reduced).
But what you can do, and what the parent is alluding to, is jump ship around year 3-4 and get the company you're going to match your current amount of outstanding stock, meaning your initial grant becomes much higher, and your refreshers do too. At least, that's the idea. It's worked for me.
Additionally, although personally I did very well on my refresher grants I know other people at my employer did not. So that's another factor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla?
That seems to fit: 1.) move from Palo alto to east bay 2.) manufacturing company with software engineers 3.) lots of people leaving 4.) CEO changing the world. However, I'm sure many companies meet that.
Anyone have a guess as to what company this was?
My guess is square. The CFO went to stanford for an MBA, where the author taught. Neither CFO Tesla has had went to Stanford. Can't find anything about Dorsey working at one of the startups listed on the author's wikipedia page, but he seemed to have been involved with many so it would be unsurprising if it just wasn't listed there.
:: Henry Mintzberg basically said it all in 2004 already: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=zsYAeVgwHDQC&oi=f... ISBN-13: 978-1576753514, ISBN-10: 1576753514 " Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many (if not most) companies do stock refreshes annually, don't they?
There's refreshes and then there's the speed of the vesting schedule. Some places offer a bunch to start, but very little after that, which means people tend to leave once they have vested all their options/RSUs. After the first year, sometimes your vesting schedule will be monthly, quarterly, twice a year, or once a year. As to why they don't allow everyone to be monthly - it's probably because they get to claw back…
I may be being a little cynical, but if you vest annually or bi-annually you can get a pretty good idea of when your employees are going to leave and use that to plan your crunch periods accordingly. People are rather unlikely to quit the month before the annual vesting date.
Despite the overall theme of this interaction, opening an office in the East Bay seems more employee friendly than keeping them in Palo Alto.
Anyone have a guess as to what company this was?
Tesla?
Most of the narrative doesn't fit as this article presents it ( it might still be tesla, but you can assume the details are pretty one sided )