Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

We have all worked for a "John" in the industry. The big systematic problem is that after being fired from Snap (probably after already collecting massive paychecks and a hefty chunk of equity), he will go to another big tech company and impress them with his resume and bullshitting skills. They will hire him and deal with his antics for a few years, while he ruins more people's careers, then he will move on. Rinse and repeat.

Also a 10/20/30/40 vesting schedule immediately stands out as a red flag for me. 25%/year vested quarterly (with a 1 year cliff) has been standard in the industry for a very long time. I would't trust a company to have my best interests at heart when it is massively beneficial for them if employees quit after 1-2 years (which is already about the average tenure at most companies of that size).

View on HN

> We have all worked for a "John" in the industry.

Agreed. But since so many middle managers are twits isn't it incumbent on the employee to learn a set of skills to deal with Johns?

Managing people is hard. Being a good manager is really hard, which is why there are so few of them.

Rather than rail against how terrible Person X is as a manager I feel like it's more productive to say, "Unless I start my own company there's always going to be some clueless middle manager above me. How do I deal with him/her effectively?"

These are multiplier soft skills. For example, we already know that a people manager that can manage brilliant people with otherwise toxic personality defects is worth a lot, but we have yet to explore the worker that can manage up a people manager with toxic personality defects. I personally only encountered this kind of a manger once, and was fortunate that I could transfer somewhere else in the same company quickly (the guy only lasted a year, but it would have been a hard year....).

> Agreed. But since so many middle managers are twits isn't it incumbent on the employee to learn a set of skills to deal with Johns?

It's much easier to simply find a better job without a John, or where you're shielded from John.

(My name breaks this analogy a bit.)

I don't think it's easier, because:

a) It's hard to identify a good manager ahead of time.

b) People change; circumstances change.

c) Your team and manager will change sooner than you expect, especially if they are a good team or manager.

d) Constantly changing jobs every time some jerk floats into your circle doesn’t speak well of your character or look good on your resume.

true if only you put real reasons on resumes.

“The growth opportunities communicated to me when my tenure began never materialized.”

Who stays anywhere more than 2-3 years now anyway?

I largely agree with you.

My current manager where I work is pretty cool. We get along pretty well, and I don't mind working for them. However, I think my manager's manager is...umm, well, let's just say "not very good at their job", fairly close to the "John" in this story.

If my current manager quit or was fired or died, and I had to work for their manager, I probably would quit before I learned to effectively work with "John"; the job market is pretty good for engineers right now, why the hell not?

Personal relationships with "Leadership"

25/year used to be the norm, but is less so these days.

Now more and more are moving towards a heavier backloaded vesting schedule. Schedules that are 10/20/30/40 or 15/25/25/35 are more and more common at big tech co.

It can make sense as well, if it takes you a certain period of time to ramp up, once you've ramped up you contribute more value and they want to retain you more there. Yes it is a mechanism to lock you in, but it's not wrong to see why the employer would want to do it. Though yes, you can also get stuck in crap work because they know they can get away with it. Then it's up to you how much you want to deal with that.

On some level that makes a lot of sense. If you're several years from IPO (or expected acquisition), 10/20/30/40 won't do any harm to people who stick around until the stock has value, and it helps keep short-turnover employees from eating away at the total stock.

Flat vesting sort of implies that four 1-year tenures are just as desirable as one 4-year tenure. And if people can get a better cash-compensation raise by switching jobs, then staying 4 years is probably less profitable than staying 2-3. (Of course, companies could also cure that by making internal raises competitive with job-transfer raises...)

Although I do find .../30/40 a bit stranger. If somebody leaves at 3 years, you save 15% of their stock compared to flat vesting. But if the extra stock gets them to stick around, they're obviously going to leave after 4 when their effective compensation plummets. It's not obvious to me that pushing employees with no long-term intent to stick around and claim more stock is a winning move.

From my reading, Snap was already public when the author joined. Is that right? I've heard that 25/25/25/25 is the standard at most of the public tech companies.

on "John", the article said "The problem with John was not just that he was misinformed, but that he was misinformed and highly motivated."

I'm reminded of this quote:

"I divide officers into four classes -- the clever, the lazy, the stupid and the industrious. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the high staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy is fit for the very highest commands. He has the temperament and the requisite nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be removed immediately." - General Baron Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord

I immediately thought of that quote as well.

I’m on a 5/15/40/40 vesting schedule. I think it’s fine because it ends up being the same TC but more cash heavy. Tech stocks have been stagnant my tenure so I don’t mind that much.

Can you elaborate? I know Amazon has this extremely unequal vesting schedule. Are they now doing yearly comp targets and bringing you up to that target with cash?

Amazons “signing bonus” is just a way to equalize the total compensation over 4 years. It’s paid out monthly in the second year which doesn’t make it much of a bonus. This is as someone with 1 year of tenure. After the first two years folks get stock refreshers.

Every year money lose value due to inflation. If we assume 10%/year returns on average, the tricky vesting schedule saves the company 10%. On top of that, a big company deals with statistics, not individual employees: if on average an employee stays for 3 years, this saves another 10%. The best comp package is when you get the entire amount upfront and can invest it into some index and bonds.

As of Feb 2018, Snap does 25/25/25/25 with monthly vesting and no cliff. Ironically, it’s probably now the best scheme in the industry.

> They will hire him and deal with his antics for a few years, while he ruins more people's careers, then he will move on. Rinse and repeat.

He'll eventually be fired -- with a golden parachute, no doubt -- after reports of sexual harassing women emerge in the media. He'll go under the radar for a few months until the media storm and Twitter mob find something else. He'll reemerge in a new startup, promising to have changed after "much praying, reconciliation, and meditation," and move on. Rinse and repeat.

He sounds like a horrible boss but I’m not sure why you added a hypothetical sexual harassment charge to his already long list of bad traits.

The real problem we have is that there are many highly competent sexual harassers in workplaces and these issues get swept under the rug specifically because they’re good workers.

> I’m not sure why you added a hypothetical sexual harassment charge to his already long list of bad traits.

Because in this hypothetical situation, John was known to use his position of power to harass women.

That is why my personal rule is to never take options. I'll take the pay and invest it on my own.

Stock options allow you as a layman to access an investment with a risk profile that is normally only available to the kind of high net-worth, well-connected individuals who do angel investing.

This isn't a reason to always participate, but it is one of the many reasons that lots of people do.

That vesting schedule is just openly designed to avoid giving the employee their equity. Salaries better be good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com