[ultrarunner]

Ownership 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.

[atoav]

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)

[acgourley]

Exactly. I think people want to be treated like owners more than they want an obtuse legal status of being an owner. In other words, a seat at the table when strategic objectives are being defined is what will make them act like owners, not a RSPA document.

[HWR_14]

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.

[JohnFen]

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.

[HWR_14]

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.

[JohnFen]

> I assume you are either already rich or want to become rich because of your startups

You assume incorrectly. I am not rich by the standards of rich people (although I am rich by the standards of many others, but I think it's safe to say that most of the people reading my comment right now are wealthier than me), and I don't form startups because of a desire to gain wealth. I have no actual interest in amassing wealth as such.

I form startups because they give me the opportunity and freedom to engage in projects that deeply interest me.

[HWR_14]

"Not rich by the standards of rich people" is a moving target as your social class improves and you rub elbows with the more wealth as you make more money. There are people making $500k a year in the Bay Area or NYC who don't think they are rich. But the simplest dividing line I can think of is "has fuck you money". That is, could you (financially, not socially or being bored) retire tomorrow if you felt like it.

[jvalencia]

Early day startups generally have high risk, the options are the high yield to compensate for that risk

[JohnFen]

Right, but that's a bit different intent than looking to get rich.

[p1esk]

What’s wrong with looking to get rich as a reason to join or start a company?