[kjs3]

They gave up some money to reward valuable employees. That's not, per se, being magnanimous or generous, it's being smart businessmen. All of these founders made out just fine, financially. When they start their next big thing, they'll be remembered not only as the guys who had a successful exit, they'll be remembered as the guys took care of their people along the way. That's about the smartest way to recruit top talent you can come up with.

[teej]

I don't think you are giving these founders enough credit. Startup acquisitions, not unlike fundraising, can be very emotional. Acquirers can go from hot to cold very quickly if they hear the wrong thing or get the wrong vibe. The founders went to great lengths to structure the deal in a way that compensated their employees like this. It's likely that they put the entire deal at risk to do so. That, in my mind, strongly shows generosity on the part of the founder.

[nilkn]

I definitely agree with you, but I also like a term from the article: the founders were long-term greedy rather than short-term greedy. They were willing to give millions to their employees in exchange for what I can only assume to be life-long loyalty and an unbeatable reputation. For someone who wants to stay in the industry for the next 10-20 years and found more companies, that could very well end up being worth far more than the money given up in the deal to employees.

[curun1r]

FWIW, one of the founders in the article phrased it as being "long-term greedy." I'm sure it felt good to make millionaires out of employees (having been part of an acquisition where only ~10 people out of nearly 300 became millionaires, I can only imagine the parties we would have had if the majority of the people had gotten life-changing exits), but there was definitely an awareness of the long-term benefits among the founders in question.

[kjs3]

per se: by or in itself or themselves; intrinsically.

I understand that some (most) of these guys are, in fact, doing this because it's the right thing to do and they are, in fact, that invested. I merely wanted to point out, counter to the tone and implication of the article, that's not the only reason to do this and they were still handsomely rewarded for the risk they took.

Conversely, I want to point out to anyone who thinks not doing the right thing wrt your team so you can pocket a few extra percentage points can have a negative consequence.

[jacquesm]

Sure they're smart businessmen (and women), they built awesome companies and successfully negotiated substantial exits. If they weren't smart then neither of those would have happened in the first place! But in the article there are some very good examples of situations where most C level teams and founders would have happily made off with the loot without sharing any of it with their co-workers, as one CEO in the article put it 'the ones they went to war with'. And there would be nothing or nobody to stop that from happening, and because this is 'normal' nobody would have likely even said anything about it beyond some grumbling at the watercooler and a maybe slightly higher turnover directly post acquisition.

So I read their generosity as the first driver to do this, and that there maybe is another reason is possible but I've yet to see a repeat successful team which would allow the conclusion to be that the second reason is also a motivator.

They're doing good, and good by their people, and that's about it. No need to search for an ulterior motive.

And there are very few if any negative consequences to not doing 'the right thing' with respect to your team, because that - unfortunately - is business as usual. These are the exceptions, definitely not the rule. I hope it becomes more common though.

[jacquesm]

That's a pretty cynical worldview. If a founder doesn't have to share his wealth because of a bunch of paper and decides to do it anyway that is generous first and possibly good business second.

After all there is no obligation on his part to ever do another start-up, there is no obligation on those rewarded to join in the future and the incidence of 'repeat teams' is low enough that I don't think it is a factor at all.

[kjs3]

Wait...I'm cynical?

[baddox]

> That's not, per se, being magnanimous or generous, it's being smart businessmen.

It's being both.

[kelukelugames]

I think this is generous but it really should be the norm. People who join start ups suffer a huge opportunity cost--hundreds of thousands of dollars in RSUs