If a team created the company then why don’t they own it already?
If a team didn’t create it, then why should they own over the team that actually created it?
It here == whole company or any substantial part of it.
Founders: Would you agree that team should own a part of a company?
21–30 of 34 posts
Re: Founders: Would you agree that team should own a part of a company?
#22Shares in the company are about control. Founder teams (ie., founder/co-founders) should decide early on about how much control each cofounder is going to retain through their ownership -- this is anyway part of forming the founding team based on the skills and capital they bring to the table.
When it comes to expanding the team with key employees outside of the founding team, giving them equity share is a decision that the founding team needs to make. A policy decision could be x% of the shares will be dedicated to key employees equity participation.
Also, key employees doesn't have to be all employees. You can segment this by role, service duration etc., For eg: an entry level role may not be eligible, but may become eligible after x months of service in the company.
There are opposing philosophies to the above. But most use some form of probation period to make employees eligible for participation.
Edit: Also, typically the equity is granted through options vesting. So, it is part of deferred compensation over a vesting period that runs over several years. It is also tied to differentiated performance-based pay.
Re: Founders: Would you agree that team should own a part of a company?
#23Ownership can mean many things, including monetary ownership, passive stock, or part ownership in strategic direction. To the latter point, every team I've worked on that had a shared strategic vision was more productive, had higher morale, and was overall a more satisfying experience. I'm not sure anyone can quantify should in terms of compensation, but ownership of purpose and direction seems to fit.
This is the reason I work in education right now. The pay could be way better given my skillset, but the one thing this institution (an art school) gets right is that they let each department decide on their own what direction they want to go in and how they do it.
Of course it is not 100% free and there are some self-correcting forces at play (e.g. students who would complain if you picked meaningless topics each semester), but if I decided the next semester is going to be on something arbitrary like the history of karaoke technology and building RC-cars I could totally do that.
So even if ultimately I end up doing something reasonable that fits the needs of the students, I know that the choice is mine entirely and I don't get the feeling of "this is the boring crap course I have to give each semester". This is worth a lot in terms of satisfaction, especially since there are few people in this instution who would understand what I am even teaching (apart from the students who visited the courses and the IT department)
Re: Founders: Would you agree that team should own a part of a company?
#24Do you mean actual ownership via stock? If so then I can speak for all founders: NO. I say this based on the absolutely shit percentage of stock with terrible terms that are offered to all employees.
Re: Founders: Would you agree that team should own a part of a company?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people join startups for a chance at getting fuck you money, and offering "a seat at the table" but no equity is a non-starter.
It all depends on the people. I know lots of people who prefer working for startups not because they're looking to get rich, but because the startup is doing something new that particularly excites them. And in my statups, I want that group of people, and actively don't want the ones who are just looking for a big payday.
I assume you are either already rich or want to become rich because of your startups. Why wouldn't you expect people to want to also be rich?
I will say every time I hear someone claim that their employees should want to join them for non-monetary reasons, I assume its to try to keep more of the rewards for themselves.
Re: Founders: Would you agree that team should own a part of a company?
#26I've always wondered, could dollars be matched to equity? Imagine a company with three employees earning $100, $200, and $300 per year. Each year the company issues them 100, 200, and 300 shares. Has anyone done this?
Re: Founders: Would you agree that team should own a part of a company?
#27Re: Founders: Would you agree that team should own a part of a company?
#28Your question will get lots of different answers, because you've phrased it in an ambiguous way, with no context. This suggests to me, that in your specific case, the answer is no.
For example, "company" could mean private or public. It could be 5 people or 150000 people.
"own" can refer to control, responsibilities, legislation, profit share, product direction, market fit, investment of cash, and more.
"team" might be everyone from the lead who's been there from the beginning, to the receptionist hired last week. Or some subset.
Context matters. The goal of ownership matters. Each context is different so there's no blanket answer. Hence my answer to your (incomplete) answer is no.
I post this reply, not to be a dick, but to point out that your question needs a lot more thought and clarity. From that I infer (perhaps incorrectly) that you are the team-member in this context, not an existing owner.
I think you have a valid, specific, question in there somewhere, but you need to narrow it down a bit. And perhaps also figure out if team ownership will actually solve the problem you are trying to solve.
Re: Founders: Would you agree that team should own a part of a company?
#29The workers should own the means of production?
Re: Founders: Would you agree that team should own a part of a company?
#30The workers should own the means of production?
You have nothing to lose but your chains.
But seriously, it's an interesting question and I got some interesting answers when I asked something similar last week. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34945428