Founders: You don't own your employees | Hacker News Reader

Founders: You don't own your employees

jasonevanish.com

73 pointsjevanish25 comments

This is important enough to me that I have left money on the table so as to not work at a place that requires my signature on an invention assignment agreement.

What I do for fun or profit on my own time is my own business, and the fact that I have a work structure that allows me to do this keeps me happy enough to come back to work the next morning.

One of the most refreshing things I found when I started at Netflix was that they actually specifically call out in the employment agreement that what you do on your own time is your own, even if you use your work computer to do it. As long as it isn't direct competition, side projects are explicitly encouraged.

CA law says that what you do on your own time with your own materials is yours.

I'll take the money and work on my side projects. I do like to see them enforce it. If my side project is destructive and a crime are they likewise responsible?

I get paid a salary to work X hours a week. If you want me to be "all in" and go the extra mile, you need to align my interests with that of the company — through equity or other means.

You should be getting paid to get your work done and perform at a certain level. Everything above that is hopefully grounds for a bonus, salary bump, promotion, and/or equity. Hopefully it's not X hours a week as the criteria.

Actually, I think profit sharing (properly structured) is a lot better than equity. I wrote about this, here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle...

Equity allotments for employees in typical VC-funded startups are pathetic, and have to be that way because VCs set such a small option pool.

Also, payment occurs at profitability (and is immediate and continuous from that point) rather than liquidity so there's an incentive for employees and founders both to do this unstylish (in VC-istan) thing called actually building a great business.

I agree with what you are saying, though.

>Actually, I think profit sharing (properly structured) is a lot better than equity.

Towards the end of last year, I spent quite a few hours thinking about a compensation structure that wouldn't completely screw over non-founders in a start-up -> small size company setting.

A "profit sharing" style set up is exactly what I came up with after several days of considering the subject, with departing employees selling their "shares" back to the company at some pre-arranged multiple of earnings or book value.

I think side projects are very important. It's funny, a lot people have a hard time distinguishing between free time and work, without realizing that for some of the best engineers out there, they are the same. Just because my laptop is open, doesn't mean I have to be working. In the evening, on the weekends, or whatever you consider your free time to be, YOU go to movies, go out for dinner, go to the gym, go skiing, etc. But, as someone who really likes to build things, the time I would be doing those things (yes, I do those as well), I'm writing code.

The key is to hire people you trust to make good decisions when it comes to side projects, and the amount of time they spend on them.

But also on the employers, have you created and maintained an environment that someone wants to work for?

One of the things I think about most often while hiring, because it is true for me is that, I would be half the developer I am without side projects. My college degree and job I had out of college taught me nothing but concepts and theory, and how to be micromanaged. I WANT to hire people that have side projects because it means they ENJOY what they do, they dont just do it because someone is paying them to.

I recently wrote about this myself: http://ryanabbott.com/side-projects-learning-experience-vs-d...

Side projects means that the person in question is investing hens own time learning (more often than not, new) stuff. They don't want their employes learning stuff. Fair enough.

"investing hens own time"

what is 'hens'?

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/hen_s...

..or just use "their"

I've written a lot about this in my blog series on the Gervais Principle (21 posts, and 0.8 being worked on).

First, you have the MacLeod hierarchy:

    "Sociopaths" (upper management): strategic + dedicated + NOT subordinate
    "Clueless" (middle management): dedicated + subordinate + NOT strategic
    "Losers" (workers): strategic + subordinate + NOT dedicated

MacLeod Sociopaths aren't all bad people, and Losers are not losers in the sense of being undesirable or unpopular people (in fact, it's often the opposite) but because low-end employment is a losing deal.

Someone who has all 3 is a Protege, but that's rare and conditional. If you don't invest in someone's career, a strategic person will never be subordinate and dedicated both. He'll either optimize for comfort (Loser route) or personal yield/glory (Sociopath route).

Work cultures tend to be defined based on what they value most.

    Subordinacy uber alles: Rank culture (typical corp. environment)
    Dedication uber alles: Tough culture (e.g. Enron, Microsoft's stack-ranking)
    Strategy uber alles: Self-executive culture (e.g. Valve)
    Balance of the 3: Guild culture (rare, not seen in startups)

VC-funded startups tend to be all-Clueless. The Sociopaths are VCs and executive implants who aren't really part of the company. Startups can't stand to have Losers, since they tend to require explicit management and the rules are too ill-defined at that point. So they often end up with the tough culture, which is the opposite of how startups wish to market themselves.

In rank culture, all you need to do to remain employable is get along with your manager; but in tough culture, there's an unwritten rule that everyone must be 100% dedicated to work. Total submission of effort replaces subordination. It's not actually that way-- people aren't actually willing to work 80+ hours without personal benefit-- but people who flagrantly break the rules get shown out.

Yes, but you may be able to convince them that you do!

Usually you need a team focused on just one job to get done - otherwise there's no 100% commitment to your project. You don't want your employees to switch between priorities.

"First, telling someone what they should and shouldn’t do in their free time is a tremendous insult to them and their personal judgment. It’s also incredibly short-sighted."

Read that. Twice. Now, add these words of pearly wisdom to the end: "It's also none of your fucking business."

It's their time, not yours. If your employees aren't giving you 100% at work, you've every right to complain. But it's absolutely none of your business what they do outside of work.

this. one million times. What I do off the clock is of no import to my employer unless it is materially impacting my work on the clock.

If you can't trust your employees then you need to review your hiring practices, and your leadership ability. That's your failure, not theirs. Own it, and deal with it.

That's not what I've meant - I don't allow working after hours in my companies. But I prefer a team, which at work focus just on my project. Side projects interfere with each other and that can be deadly to productivity at work. I wouldn't ever try to tell anybody what to do with their free time, relax man :)

Given the context of the blog (free time), it's only natural to assume you were talking about that too, since you don't explicitly state otherwise.

I'm perfectly relaxed by the way. I swore for emphasis, not out of emotional engagement.

I think everyone is assuming that the side projects are for after-hours. I think we can all agree that you should focus on your job at work.

Read that. Twice. Now, add these words of pearly wisdom to the end: "It's also none of your fucking business."

You, sir, have been awarded with an Honorary Indignation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtCiP8B2xpc#t=7s

Every A Player I've ever worked with has brought full attention, quality and focus regardless of other priorities in their life (barring major, extenuating circumstances like a death). What they do in their non-work time has little impact on their work productivity unless it starts causing too much sleep deprivation.

Most people I've met can handle thinking about more than one thing in a given day or week and to be a productive human you have to. Whether it's reading a bed time story to your child, remembering what groceries to buy on the way home or checking the code a friend committed to your side project, you have to think about other things besides work every day to be a normal, functional human.

...otherwise there's no 100% commitment to your project.

If you want employees to be 100% committed, you'll have to stop thinking of it as "your" project.

Also, there's the small matter of renumeration for that other ~128hrs per week.

I'm perfectly happy to be 100% committed to my employers interests/projects for the ~40hrs a week that all the salary negotiations were assuming. I'm even perfectly happy to adjust those assumptions when it benefits the company - I'll work overtime when needed or do a few 60hr weeks at "crunch time" with time off in lieu.

But if work wants to start dictating what I do or don't do in those _other_ 128 hours, we first need to discuss what a reasonable rate to pay for that is. (And, indeed, whether I'm even interested in a job that wants control of more than 40-ish hours a week of my time.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com