[HN Gopher] Being on a board as an employee ___________________________________________________________________ Being on a board as an employee Author : mooreds Score : 114 points Date : 2022-10-17 15:28 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (paulosman.me) (TXT) w3m dump (paulosman.me) | pge wrote: | The statement that he is the first employee at a US venture- | backed software company to sit on the board is comically wrong. | Venture-backed companies have had employee board members as | regular practice for at least as long as the 20+ years I have | been in the industry. While not necessarily the norm, it is | certainly not uncommon for an employee other than the CEO to have | a seat (often a co-founder). The seat is usually designated as | elected by the holders of Common Stock (which usually is the | founders and employees with stock). The only thing I see unique | here is that he was elected by the employees with one vote per | employee, rather by common shareholders with one vote per share. | [deleted] | duxup wrote: | I don't even know how anyone would prove that claim. | [deleted] | paulosman wrote: | Added a clarification: first non-founder/executive employee to | sit on a board. If there's another venture-backed software | company in North America who's put a rank and file employee on | their board, I'd love to hear about it! | [deleted] | eatonphil wrote: | That's a pretty massive statement to make that is almost | impossible to prove correct and needs only one counterexample | to be proven incorrect (which has already been provided in | this thread). | ska wrote: | This is probably worth an application of a much more general | principle: if you have experienced something directly it's | quite likely to be fairly common, however if you haven't | experienced something it's not good evidence that it isn't | fairly common. | | Path dependence means personal experience is rarely very | generalizable. | | Of course if you've made a systematic study of corporate | governance and have data on thousands of companies, things | are different. | ihm wrote: | I mentioned in another comment but at O(1) Labs (which is VC- | backed) we've had a board composed of employees for about a | year. I'm not sure about the timing of your situation, but | also I'm sure we're not the first company to do so. | aerosmile wrote: | Your reasoning in this discussion is unbecoming of a board | member. In your activity on that board you're involved in a | lot of open-ended conversations with a lot of ambiguity and | high cost of failure. I hope you express yourself in that | setting with a bit more humility and introspection. | xapata wrote: | Why do you think you're the first? Did you perform a | systematic survey? | tptacek wrote: | _Please don 't pick the most provocative thing in an article or | post to complain about in the thread. Find something | interesting to respond to instead._ | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | In particular: it's clear from the context they're talking | about non-founder employees; simply by the principle of charity | you should assume the author --- who sat on the board of a | pretty successful VC-funded company --- knows that founder | employees are often on boards. | | Mostly though, this "who was first" discussion is an attractive | nuisance for us to bicker on about, and we're asked by the | guidelines not to take the bait on that stuff. | ihm wrote: | Great to read about. At O(1) Labs[^0] we've had a board that | consists only of employees for about a year now. Employees who | have been around for at least 1 year can run and vote. It's one- | person-one-vote and we use Scottish Single Transferrable | Vote[^1]. | | We also have a biannual meeting we call our General Assembly in | which anyone can make proposals, and then we debate and vote on | them as a company. For anyone trying to inject more democracy | into their company, I think having a structure like that which | more explicitly empowers workers to shape company policy is | essential. | | [^0]: https://o1labs.org/ | | [^1]: https://www.opavote.com/methods/scottish-stv-rules | dheera wrote: | What are the arguments for incorporating democracy into a | company? Why must it be a democracy? What if your employees all | have short term personal interests in mind, want 6 months a | year of PTO, and overthrow the CEO to get it? | | I always felt like seeking input from employees, especially | those who have contributed significantly and that you value a | lot, is extremely important, but it's not necessary for them to | have board seats and votes to consciously take steps to obtain | their feedback and make good use of it. | | Since participation in a company is entirely at-will, what's | wrong with "Join if you agree with the founders' vision, leave | if you don't"? | | Too many cooks spoil the broth. | thesuitonym wrote: | Employees aren't idiots. They'll realize that the business | still needs to run, but instead of a top-down approach from | someone who thinks they're smarter that the people actually | doing the work, the decision making is made by people who | really know what they're deciding on. | dnissley wrote: | Not malice, not stupidity, but a third even more prevalent | failing: incentives. | dheera wrote: | I'm suggesting NOT being top-down, getting their feedback | and letting them make decisions, without formal board seats | and votes. | | It's possible to not have a top-down approach on a day-to- | day basis, but for the founders to still maintain veto | power at the end of the day if shit happens. | ghaff wrote: | I guess the question I would ask is the following. | Assuming you're already doing a decent job of soliciting | feedback from employees, what's the argument for | effectively giving one employee a louder voice than | everyone one else? Because I don't see how that doesn't | happen to at least some degree. | cool_dude85 wrote: | What kind of honest feedback can a manager get from the | employee he has firing authority over? | | And what employee would prefer a promise to represent | their best interests on the board over actual | representation? | marcinzm wrote: | The issue is that they're not idiots but rational | intelligent people that can understand different rewards. | They can always get a new job and if the payout if higher | from nuking the company along the way then it's rational | for them to be biased that way. | valleyer wrote: | Next, describe traditional board members and CEOs. | marcinzm wrote: | Exactly my point except their interests tend to be | aligned with the other stockholders of the company since | they all make money from the stock. The cases where they | don't are well known such as VCs insisting on massive | growth (go big or go bankrupt), activist investors and so | on. | hither_shores wrote: | > Exactly my point except their interests tend to be | aligned with the other stockholders of the company since | they all make money from the stock. | | ...because of how executive compensation is typically | structured. Non-executive employees can also receive | stock grants. | Hermitian909 wrote: | Board members often have the same issue, but in a | different way. Probably the favorite two step approach: | | 1. Guide the company to do things that boost the stock | price in the short term (1-3 years) but destroy the | company's ability to compete on longer time lines | | 2. Dump your stock position | | This doesn't usually happen with founders, but I can | personally attest to the fact that this has been done | intentionally by board members of billion dollar | businesses. | | There are also more subtle approaches, e.g. board members | pushing for strategies that hurt the company, but boost | the board members' other holdings. | [deleted] | bigbillheck wrote: | What are the arguments for incorporating democracy into a | state? | dheera wrote: | In many cases, you don't have a choice to be born into a | state. You're subject to it just by virtue of being there. | It's not a choice. That's the difference. | | That said, like pure authoritarianism, pure democracy as a | state governance system also has failure modes, and its | merits are also debatable. | dnissley wrote: | Quite different than those arguments for incorporating | democracy into a company, and also quite different to those | arguments for incorporating democracy into a family | structure. | ralph84 wrote: | > What if your employees all have short term personal | interests in mind, want 6 months a year of PTO, and overthrow | the CEO to get it? | | How does being a non-employee make an outside board member | less self-interested? What if an outside board member wants | to get paid $500K a year in cash for serving on the board and | overthrows the CEO to get it? | | At the end of the day board members have a fiduciary duty to | shareholders that applies regardless of whether they're an | employee. | | The idea that someone who spends almost all of their waking | hours on a company would be more likely to tank a company | than someone who spends a few hours a month as an outside | board member seems odd to say the least. | dheera wrote: | > What if an outside board member wants to get paid $500K a | year in cash | | That's the thing, they (assuming you're talking about an | investor or cofounder) wouldn't want to. They're holding | onto a chunk of equity that would be worth maybe $10M, | $100M, maybe even $1G, if the company gets to IPO, so they | would NOT want to sabotage the company by taking a $500K | salary from it now and have their shares be worth nothing. | | Employees who have peanuts in equity have different | incentives. They couldn't give three hoots about the | company's long term success if they can get $500K this year | for a downpayment on a house to send their kids to a good | school district. | archarios wrote: | Participation in a company is not entirely at will. We all | have to work for some company to survive. If all companies | that I have access to are all authoritarian dictatorships, | I'm forced to live under that kind of rule. | | Your thinking doesn't seem to take into account the social | and economic power dynamics at play. The working class has | less bargaining power than the capitalist class right now in | general. We are forced to live under their terms and have | very little say in what the status quo is. | paulosman wrote: | That's awesome! Thanks for sharing - it's great to see | companies that are willing to embrace more representative | governance. | unity1001 wrote: | Pretty rad... | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | One thing about an employee being on the board, especially if it | is a large company, is that the board is not going to be where | the real decisions are being made. | | Many of the board members are together a lot outside the board. | Many board members serve on the boards of several different | companies. These board members likely see each other at expensive | charity events and political events and cultural/art events. | Their kids likely attend similar private schools or colleges. | They will often go to the to the same ski resorts in Colorado or | Switzerland. | | Having a board member who is not part of that socio-economic | class, sounds nice in theory, but in practice will get left out | of the real decision making and real discussions. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _the board is not going to be where the real decisions are | being made_ | | Are you basing this on supposition or experience? Yes, Board | business happens off the clock. But that's prep. If a Board | member is being systematically excluded from material | negotiations, that exposes the Board to a host of liability. | throwaway2037 wrote: | _Bump_ Everything that I have seen and heard from Charity Majors | (cool name, right?) is a good listen / read. She is amazing. | Honeycomb.io is lucky to have someone like her on the board of | directory. | [deleted] | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Are readers clear on whether the author was appointed as a voting | member of the board or not? | | I read the whole article and I didn't have any sense of the | author performing the activities that directors are generally | expected to perform and there was some discussion about non- | voting members being asked to leave during "administrative" parts | of the meeting but not whether that included him. | johannes1234321 wrote: | In Germany some companies (depends a bit on size, form of | incorporation and industry) employees by law can elect members to | the board. In some cases 1/3 of the members, sometimes 7/15. But | then a German board is more distinct from operational business | and executives can't be on the board. (Thus no CEO&Chairman etc ) | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervisory_board#Germany (not | exactly correct i.e. misses the special rules for coal and steel | industries) | brnt wrote: | For those interested, the Rhineland model, or Rhineland | capitalism are useful keywords. | eatonphil wrote: | See also: shareholder (US-model) vs stakeholder | (German/European-model) debate. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-17 23:00 UTC)