RSS
Twitter
Is It Different Just Because Google Does It?
from the it's-called-a-bonus... dept
Google has been getting a ton of (mostly, well deserved) attention for some of their employee practices. However, sometimes, it seems that they get extra attention for ideas that don't seem all that innovative, just because "Google" is doing it. Take, for instance, this NY Times report about how Google is now offering "Founders' Awards" to teams that work on important projects. Basically, Google's founders pick some teams (technical or business) that have worked on something that's become important or has done very well, and dump a bunch more stock on them. In the first case of this happening, they gave out about $12 million in stock to about a dozen employees (though, it wasn't divided evenly). Now, obviously, that's quite a bit of money, and part of the idea is that it encourages employees to stick around, rather than go out and start their own companies with their own ideas -- but, honestly, isn't this really just what the rest of the business world calls a bonus? About the only real difference may be the size of the bonus -- and that may be more of a function of just how much cash Google happens to be swimming in right now.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
the problem of course is that it isnt an issue of how much cash the company has, since they're paying the award in stock, not cash. as long as total dilution remains small, practices such as these may make sense, but to me, the founders award reeks of yet another example of how unfriendly google will be to regular shareholders. multiple-class shares with different vote counts, a triumverate management team, a virtual vacuum of financial guidance, and now, regular stock-based awards for projects the company is unwilling to discuss or specify why millions of dollars were a justified bonus.
that said, im probably just jealous. and on the other hand, i do want companies i own to keep talented employees and encourage innovation, so its not the worst idea ive heard.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Well yeah. I remember when I worked - for 366 days - in a moderately large international corporation, at a marketing (*spit!*) conference in Miami, I, the humble techie, watched the CEO highlight some middle-manager and say "here, have 1500 stock options" in front of the whole company by way of reward. Far from inspiring me to think "oooh, I can have money too", I just thought it was really quite disgusting to behold.
Anyway. Point is, the larger the company, the more traditional they become. Stock options have been around for ages, and really, I'd just prefer to have honest money in savings account and be done rather than yanking my chain around with what the options are worth today.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
The article said this was an outright stock grant vested over four years, not options. That's good, because there's a pretty good chance that google's stock won't be as high four years from now.
As for startups spinning out of google... yeah, it's probably happened already. No company can corner the market for talent, if only because there won't be enough front burner projects to satisfy everybody.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment