The difference between an employee and an investor is that the investor puts their eggs in many baskets, and an employee puts all of their eggs in one basket. So investors get diversification of risk while employees do not. Therefore consistently accepting low probability but potentially high return choices on average works out well for investors and not for employees. And in fact investors push this way - their incentive is always to "swing for the fences" because their business model is based on the one or two investments that work out which pay for the failures.
If you are considering working for a startup, the value of your equity should not be a primary consideration. Instead you should be so deciding because you enjoy the fact that the organization is small, you can have an impact, competence can result in rapid promotion, you have the opportunity to learn many skills. If you want to be in it for THOSE reasons, then seriously consider it.
When you are in any negotiation you should make all decisions about equity from the point of view of never expecting it to be worth a dime - because it probably won't be - but be ready to trade salary in excess of your actual needs for it because you recognize that the person on the other side is trying to reward you, and rewarding people like you with money makes the company less likely to succeed.
If you work from those principles, then you are likely to choose a job which is a good fit and where you have a good impact. If you instead work from everything as a straightforward economic transaction then startups can't consistently reward you like an established company will.
But I can see you jumping up and down about the potential payoff from equity. If you are a person whose day to day life can be motivated by that, then go off and read http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/04/is-it-time-for... and decide whether you are ready to start your own company now, or want to gain skills before doing it in a bit. Seriously, the difference between "last founder" and "first employee" is so huge that people who can derive their day to day motivation from equity should be founders.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I have worked for a number of startups, been paid out non-life changing amounts more than once, and have never tried being a founder.)
'Seriously, the difference between "last founder" and "first employee" is so huge that people who can derive their day to day motivation from equity should be founders.'
hmm, I just got a gig where we want to cut a salary/equity deal (we're checking each other out for mutual fit via hourly at first). I will be in no way a founder, but it appears to me that my job will be in significant part to get the code into a state where it's in a state for handover for acquisition.
I am also in the 'worked for a number of startups, been paid out non-life changing amounts more than once, and have never tried being a founder' category. What I meant to say is that founders take more risk and get more equity than early employees, and that is how it should be.
Once a company has enough revenue (or investment money) to hire employees, much of the risk has already been removed. A product is either prototyped and tested or partially built. Discussions with potential customers have already taken place. Initial marketing strategies and plans have been made. And founders often do that without getting paid or even a guarantee that they will ever get paid.
They also end up with 10x-20x more equity than an early employee who gets paid a normal salary.
So if equity in a company is highly motivating, and you don't mind working on an exciting idea knowing that you may never see any money, then founding a company might be a good fit.
Or you can make job decisions now that will help you learn to be a founder in the future.
Founding a company is a roller coaster of joy and despair, so it's not for everyone. I haven't tried it yet, but a side project of mine has felt like that roller coaster. I can only imagine that doing it full-time would be the same, except magnified.
If you are considering working for a startup, the value of your equity should not be a primary consideration. Instead you should be so deciding because you enjoy the fact that the organization is small, you can have an impact, competence can result in rapid promotion, you have the opportunity to learn many skills. If you want to be in it for THOSE reasons, then seriously consider it.
When you are in any negotiation you should make all decisions about equity from the point of view of never expecting it to be worth a dime - because it probably won't be - but be ready to trade salary in excess of your actual needs for it because you recognize that the person on the other side is trying to reward you, and rewarding people like you with money makes the company less likely to succeed.
If you work from those principles, then you are likely to choose a job which is a good fit and where you have a good impact. If you instead work from everything as a straightforward economic transaction then startups can't consistently reward you like an established company will.
But I can see you jumping up and down about the potential payoff from equity. If you are a person whose day to day life can be motivated by that, then go off and read http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/04/is-it-time-for... and decide whether you are ready to start your own company now, or want to gain skills before doing it in a bit. Seriously, the difference between "last founder" and "first employee" is so huge that people who can derive their day to day motivation from equity should be founders.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I have worked for a number of startups, been paid out non-life changing amounts more than once, and have never tried being a founder.)