Q: How much acceleration of vesting upon a change in control do Series-A startups typically offer?

Mary Russell counsels individual employees and founders to negotiate, maximize and monetize their stock options and other startup stock. She is an attorney and the founder of Stock Option Counsel.

A: Startup would not likely offer accelerated vesting upon change of control without you asking for it. But acceleration is usually a negotiable term for anyone in mid to senior roles. 

If you frame this negotiation as a discussion of your role and what you are being brought on to accomplish, it will get to the truth of the matter - What vesting makes sense for your position in the enterprise's future? All compensation - and especially vesting schedules - should make sense for what you are there to do. But startups might not take the time to look at it in that way. 

For example, a senior engineer was brought into a Series A startup to make a big push toward efficient operations. He was so successful at his job that the startup was "finished" with him after 6 months when the operations could be managed by junior engineers. He was on a four year vesting schedule with a one year cliff. Did it make sense that he would receive zero equity for doing an amazing job at exactly the job he was hired to do? No.

If the comapny wont agree to acceleration, ask for more shares to make up for the fact that you don't expect to earn the full number of shares in your grant.

Good luck. And watch out for the precise terms of your acceleration language to be sure they make sense as well.

Mary Russell counsels individual employees and founders to negotiate, maximize and monetize their stock options and other startup stock. She is an attorney and the founder of Stock Option Counsel.

Founders: Kurt Vonnegut's Caution on Corporate Attorneys

Kurt Vonnegut, Author

If you are a founder with some suspicions about the motivations and allegiances of your company's law firm, you may appreciate the wisdom of Kurt Vonnegut.

Vonnegut has a great bit in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater about the worst motivations of corporate lawyers. 

The book is about money, sort of. Here's the opening line:

“A sum of money is a leading character in this tale about people, just as a sum of honey might properly be a leading character in a tale about bees.”

— Kurt Vonnegut, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater

The Rosewater family had a great fortune. It was held by The Rosewater Foundation, for the benefit of the family's heirs, and managed by a law firm called McAllister, Robjent, Reed and McGee. An associate of the firm, Norman Mushari, was Vonnegut's embodiment of the worst motivations of corporate lawyers.

“No one ever went out to lunch with Mushari. He took nourishment alone in cheap cafeterias, and plotted the violent overthrow of the Rosewater Foundation. He knew no Rosewaters. What engaged his emotions was the fact that the Rosewater fortune was the largest single money package represented by McAllister, Robjent, Reed and McGee. He recalled what his favorite professor, Leonard Leech, once told him about getting ahead in law. Leech said that, just as a good airplane pilot should always be looking for places to land, so should a lawyer be looking for situations where large amounts of money were about to change hands.

”In every big transaction,” said Leech, “there is a magic moment during which a man has surrendered a treasure, and during which the man who is due to receive it has not yet done so. An alert lawyer will make that moment his own, possessing the treasure for a magic microsecond, taking a little of it, passing it on. If the man who is to receive the treasure is unused to wealth, has an inferiority complex and shapeless feelings of guilt, as most people do, the lawyer can often take as much as half the bundle, and still receive the recipient’s blubbering thanks.”

— Kurt Vonnegut, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater

Vonnegut's wisdom is a good reminder to founders that their company's attorneys may be representing the company's money rather than its founders.

Stock Option Counsel provides personal counsel to founders to protect their individual interests. At incorporation, we review the company counsel's documents and provide founder-friendly terms. At financings and mergers, we train founders to help them master the deal terms so they can identify and negotiate for the terms most favorable to them as individuals. For more information, see the  Stock Option Counsel website or call us at (650) 326-3412.

Negotiation Rhythms #3: Sales & Threats

Mary Russell counsels individual employees and founders to negotiate, maximize and monetize their stock options and other startup stock. She is an attorney and the founder of Stock Option Counsel. You are welcome to contact Stock Option Counsel at info@stockoptioncounsel or (650) 326-3412.

There are two ways to increase or decrease another party’s limit in a negotiation – sales and threats.[1] The picture above takes some of the mystery out of the salesman and the thug -- they're both just working as negotiators to change the perception of the current offer in comparison to the other party's BATNA – Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement.

Selling improves the perception of the quality of the present offer so that the outside alternatives are unattractive by comparison. Threats decrease the attractiveness of outside offers or the possibility of making no deal and sticking with the status quo.

Threats

An ongoing employment lawsuit over no-hire agreements among Silicon Valley companies featuring Steve Jobs provides a strangely relevant example of the power of threats. 

Edward Colligan, former CEO of Palm, has said in a statement that Jobs was concerned about Palm’s hiring of Apple employees and that Jobs “proposed an arrangement between Palm and Apple“ [2] to prohibit either party from recruiting the others' employees.

That would have been a simple offer of an agreement (however illegal that arrangement might have been) if Colligan had access to the undisturbed alternative of not participating and keeping the status quo.

But Colligan has said that Jobs’ next negotiation move was to make the alternative of nonparticipation very unappealing with the threat of patent lawsuits that would cost Palm and Apple a great deal of money. Jobs followed this threat with a reminder of just how unpleasant such litigation would be for Palm, considering the fact that Apple had vast resources to endlessly pursue the lawsuits: "I’m sure you realize the asymmetry in the financial resources of our respective companies …."[2]

Even though most of us don’t use threats in a negotiation, it’s part of the logic of negotiation rhythms. 

Selling

Selling is the more common (and generally legal) way to address the fact that the other party has choices outside the present negotiation. As we discussed in the prior posts, a party's price or terms limits are defined by his or her best alternative outside of making an agreement in the present negotiation. Selling moves the limit when it can make the present offer more appealing than what had been perceived as an outside alternative.

Many people resist “selling themselves” in a salary negotiation because they are embarrassed to discuss their “value.” The logic of BATNA and negotiations provides some relief from this embarrassment, for it reframes “selling” from bluffing and puffing to describing and distinguishing one’s past experience and intended role in the organization.

Since the employer’s limit is not defined by an individual’s value, but by the employee’s differentiation from the field of candidates, the task of negotiating becomes more fact-based and less fear-driven. This logic encourages progress from the attitude of “Oh, they see who I am and hate me,” toward the sales approach of “Oh, it seems they need more information about what I offer in terms of my past experience and my role going forward.”

As an employee’s offer of services becomes distinguishable from the employer’s alternatives, the employer’s perception of the BATNA will change.

Consider an employer who believes there’s an equal candidate available for $120,000 and is entertaining another’s proposal to perform the role for $140,000. Without “selling” the offer of one’s services, the employer has no information with which to make a distinction between the two alternatives. The process of selling oneself to the employer is not to prove one’s inner worthiness at $140,000, but to show and tell that the employer is choosing between two distinguishable candidates. 

(For those still interested in threats, distinguishing one’s skills is a form of a threat when it comes to negotiating with a current employer. Every element of the description one’s current performance and ongoing role is a threat of what the employer would have to work without or try to replace.)

What an employer would have once considered a better alternative – such as another equal offer for $120,000 – loses its appeal in light of the truth (sales pitch) of the $140,000 offer. If they are no longer equal in the mind of the employer, he or she must consciously decide if the other candidate at the lower price is still a better alternative. While there is no guarantee that the employer will prefer to pay more, the process of selling pushes the employer to the choice based on the true distinctions in the qualities of the candidates.

Mary Russell counsels individual employees and founders to negotiate, maximize and monetize their salary, stock options and other startup stock. She is an attorney and the founder of Stock Option Counsel. You are welcome to contact Stock Option Counsel at info@stockoptioncounsel or (650) 326-3412.

[1] Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Gerald B. Wetlaufer, The Rhetorics of Negotiation (posted to SSRI).

[2] http://vrge.co/USNorq

Negotiation Rhythms #2: Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement

Mary Russell counsels individual employees and founders to negotiate, maximize and monetize their stock options and other startup stock. She is an attorney and the founder of Stock Option Counsel. You are welcome to contact Stock Option Counsel at info@stockoptioncounsel or (650) 326-3412.

We know we want to push beyond our limits to capture as much value as possible in a negotiation. But how do we define those limits? It takes a five-word phrase to bring this concept into focus: Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (“BATNA”).

The BATNA for a car buyer might be the same car at a nearby dealership for $20,000. The BATNA for a home seller might be an offer from another party for $1 million. The BATNA for a child trading baseball cards might be to hold onto his favorite cards and enjoy looking at them rather than to trade them away.

Any agreement below (or, for a maximum limit, above) a BATNA would leave the negotiator worse off than in the absence of that particular agreement. Said another way, the negotiator would be better off with some other option – their BATNA – than accepting an agreement on those terms.

To properly identify a BATNA, we must do a lot of calculating, daydreaming, and going out in the world to test alternatives. But this creative process is necessary. When we believe that the only alternative is the one at hand, our negotiation position is dangerously weak. It is also dangerously ineffective because it leads to an arrangement that does not, in fact, make the negotiator better off than without it. And any deal that is not in both parties’ best interests is unstable and likely to collapse after it is made.

Countless factors go into naming and ranking one’s alternatives to arrive at a BATNA, and even then it is impossible to do so clearly as those factors cannot all be outlined in numerical format. A better offer might be less certain of being completed, so it might be more advantageous to make an agreement on less favorable terms today. For example, the other job offer might not be certain even though it appears it would be more advantageous if it were finalized. This is the old saying that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush, and this can be dangerous for those who optimistically negotiate as if their imaginary alternatives are already in the hand. In the other extreme, this is very limiting for those who are very fearful of uncertainty, as they will accept disadvantageous terms for the simple purpose of having certain terms when a bit of risk in pursuit of a better alternative could have led to greater results.

Timing is important in other ways as well, as a negotiator with more time to come to an agreement will have more chances to find alternatives to the agreement at hand. "Wait and see" becomes a BATNA in itself. The opposite of this would be a party who must have resolution today, which would, of course, limit the alternatives.

Beyond hard limits on time, some people do not enjoy the back and forth process of negotiating. They might prefer to take this deal, and even to accept much less of the middle than is possible to capture, than to continue to seek alternatives or negotiate deals. For these people, the process itself inhibits the growth of BATNAs.

We’ll see in the next post – Negotiation Rhythms #3: Sales & Threats – how brainstorming or eliminating BATNAs changes the ZOPA and improves or weakens our force in negotiation.

Mary Russell counsels individual employees and founders to negotiate, maximize and monetize their stock options and other startup stock. She is an attorney and the founder of Stock Option Counsel. You are welcome to contact Stock Option Counsel at info@stockoptioncounsel or (650) 326-3412.

Negotiation Rhythms

We’ve all heard plenty of advice about negotiating.

The business world directs us to stay rationally focused, rely on exhaustive preparation, think through alternatives, spend less time talking and more time listening and asking questions, and let the other side make the first offer.[1]

The psych world counsels us to listen first, sit down, find common ground, move in, keep cool, be brief, forget neutrality, avoid empty threats, and don’t yield.[2]

These tips don’t have much meaning without knowing the underlying principles of negotiations, and studying tips alone is about as meaningful as learning dance steps without ever hearing the music.

The following three-part series presents the rhythm of negotiations as described in the Harvard Negotiation Project’s Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.[3] It should be useful for those first learning to hear this rhythm and for those who have been dancing since the bazaars of their youth who may need to go back to basics to learn some tricky new steps.

Mary Russell counsels individual employees and founders to negotiate, maximize and monetize their stock options and other startup stock. She is an attorney and the founder of Stock Option Counsel. You are welcome to contact Stock Option Counsel at info@stockoptioncounsel or (650) 326-3412.

Read on!

#1: Zone of Possible Agreement

#2: Best Alternatives to Negotiated Agreement

#3: Sales & Threats

[1] Take It Or Leave It: The Only Guide to Negotiating You Will Ever Need http://www.inc.com/magazine/20030801/negotiation.html via @Inc

[2] The Art of Negotiation | Psychology Today http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200701/the-art-negotiation

[3] Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 

Startup Negotiation: Know the Game

Mary Russell counsels individual employees and founders to negotiate, maximize and monetize their stock options and other startup stock. She is an attorney and the founder of Stock Option Counsel.

Craps is the best game in a casino. The house odds are very low at around 0.6%. When you’re rolling and you’re hot you can make big money for everyone at the table. And when you’re cold it doesn’t take long for your turn to end and the dice to move to someone who might get hot!

The same is true for Silicon Valley. It is arguably the only place where employees can strike it rich. Employees become rollers here, making the enterprise happen and enjoying some of the upside of the business through employee equity.

But the odds in craps can be even worse than double zero roulette if you don’t choose the right bets. There are about 120 to choose from, and the people who win know the game and know the risks they’re taking with each bet.

This is a list of casino-style descriptions of a bet on stock options, RSUs or ESPPs. We’ll give each a more thorough look (and pay attention to the great casino king Uncle Sam’s take) in later posts. To keep it simple, these presume that the vesting time/terms have been met by the player.

Stock Options: Player wins cash if (1) player pays cash exercise price to company before/when leaving the company and before the expiration date of the option; (2) company gives permission for or requires player to sell shares (on secondary market, at IPO, at sale of company, etc.); and (3) player sells shares at a price greater than the exercise price. Player loses the exercise price cash if (2) and (3) are not met.

RSUs (“Restricted Stock Units”): Player wins cash when (1) company settles the RSUs in shares of common stock (aka company gives player common stock) and (2) player sells the shares.

ESPPs (“Employee Stock Purchase Plans”): Player wins cash if (1) player makes cash payroll contribution; (2) company converts player’s cash to shares on purchase date (# of shares = cash/conversion price); (3) player sells shares at a price greater than the conversion price. Player loses cash if player sells shares below the conversion price.

Of course, this post does not include the 1000 disclaimers that would be necessary to cover every possible Stock Option/RSU/ESPP plan or equity compensation bet. But it should be a good place to start for employees trying to know the game.