> People who control those companies are solely executives or wall street share holders, not the people who spend countless hours making the company run and function
As an entrepreneur, it's actually pretty difficult to find folks who prefer getting compensated primarily in shares rather than cash. If you want to have significant ownership in a company that usually isn't much of a challenge.
I think it's because the ideals of a start up and co-op are at odds.
Start ups typically want large success, and are more pitching in for a gamble. What this person is talking about, and I imagine many co-ops are in general, is just want to exist as masters of themselves with a steady job. That's just my 2 cents on it, people probably have wildly different ideas based on who and what the co-op was for...
When you launch a start up, the best case scenario involves selling off large chunks of the company at every step of the way to your amazing success. By the end you and your original owners have a diluted share (and say) in that vision. Very different than, "we're all making steady pay with democratic leadership." Sure it's a matter of taste as to who would want which.
I think that's largely a cultural issue though. We've trained people to believe in this extreme form of specialisation. They don't even expect to take on responsibility any more because they believe that this is solely the domain of management, owners and so on.
It's probably going to take some effort if we want to bring the idea back that employees should have a say in the direction and leadership of a business.
"They don't expect to take on responsibility"? No. It's just that most of the time, employees having a say in leadership decisions is a pipe dream in practice, ergo: Paid in shares = all of the risk and none of the authority.
If you want to have significant ownership in a company that usually isn't much of a challenge.
It's not so easy if you want to cap your total employee equity to 10-20% or some other arbitrary number that "they" tell you should be targeted. Lot's of people who are advocating this sort of approach are unrealistic about how much equity gives "significant ownership", in my experience.
A related issue - I know many people who are more than happy to consider joining early for "significant ownership" (however we define that) but only if it comes with "significant decision making input" as well, in similar ratio. If as an entrepreneur you are looking at this sort of arrangement as primarily a tool to manage early cash flow, you are thinking about it the wrong way in my opinion.
Probably because the shares that most companies offer are worthless for setting company direction. Employee pool of options is 20%? So investors & founders can always out vote everyone.
Did those shares come with any actual power with respect to how the company is run? Were you trying to offer any decision-making ability to your employees?
As an entrepreneur, it's actually pretty difficult to find folks who prefer getting compensated primarily in shares rather than cash. If you want to have significant ownership in a company that usually isn't much of a challenge.