[hinkley]

My memory is fuzzy but the one place I got options that were worth anything, it would have taken me about 8 years to double the stock grant I was given when we were acquired. So I had this big block of initial options of which hundreds of shares vested every quarter, and then dozens of shares of the subsequent grants came due at a slightly different time.

To me, the first rule of rewarding someone is to make sure the recipient did all of the work before the reward. If you make them work afterward then it sours the desserts.

I would end up holding onto those little blocks until the next batch of original stocks vested because I had to push a bunch of buttons like a monkey (in a UI designed by monkeys) for a couple hundred bucks. Which just reminded me that I could be making more money and a bigger impact working just about anywhere else.

And then they cancelled the only project that any of us thought had any strategic value to the company. So my direct manager quit. Then someone else quit. Then I gave about 3 weeks notice, but was the 5th one out the door because 2 other people resigned in the week after I gave mine. In all about 8 people left in something like 12 weeks.

Because we all quit right after the end of the fiscal year, we were all owed a bonus from the previous one. When we got the bonus check (mine was a little over 2 month's pay, but the majority of the others got better reviews so got bigger payouts) we went out for beers. Someone, probably me, asked if it was worth it to stay for the last four+ months when things started going sideways. Only one person said yes, out of eight.

[sokoloff]

> To me, the first rule of rewarding someone is to make sure the recipient did all of the work before the reward. If you make them work afterward then it sours the desserts.

For executives and directors, I disagree completely. The shareholders are paying them to make and execute decisions that will grow the company (and share price) over a long period of time. The share-based compensation plan should reflect (and help align) that they are being paid to make long-term decisions.

Those are inherently "promise/award before the hard work is done" type of grants as I see it. (Why would I pay you more for a decision you've already made or work you already did, unless we're just talking about a modest spot bonus for a job well done?)

[hinkley]

We aren't discussing keeping directors and executives happy. We're discussing directors and executives making stupid decisions and thinking the people doing the work won't care.

Also, stock options are worth less than nothing several times over if you are not in a position to make decisions. First, they're issued at market rate, so since they're options and not a stock grant, after fees you'd lose money selling them. Except you can't sell them because they are pieces of paper for a year.

And I know this will stick in the craw of a lot of developers, but as a non executive, any control you believe you have over the stock price is either tiny, illusory, or something the executives will take away if they notice. This is their game and to them you are a pawn, no matter how brilliant and indispensable your team and boss think you are. If you're affecting the stock price then it'll be up or out for you. You'll either be made a manager or treated as an unwanted variable.

[hinkley]

In that particular line I'm talking more about execution of incentives, then painting options with that brush. Have you ever won a contest or award at work and then they can't seem to deliver it? The check or the tickets never shows up and you have to keep working for something that was already promised you? It sours the whole experience.