I have to say, I'm really baffled by this comment. I have no idea how you got to here from what I wrote. Jacques's comment I understand and respect, but yours feels like a pretty big mischaracterization of my post.
I felt I argued pretty strongly against "ripping off" employees. Here are a few lines from my post:
"give them enough options so that they will win when the company wins, and so that their incentives are aligned with yours."
"And the CEO should not use her superior financial knowledge or position to take unfair advantage of employees who might not have as much information or financial savvy."
It is never okay to rip off employees, or to take advantage of informational asymmetry to give them a raw deal.
I wasn't saying that you thought it was ok to rip off employees.
But I was talking about the how people will perceive your comment - you came a cross as taking a hardline "Caveat emptor" line.
How you "present" to your employees and the public (to use a some HR jargon) is key - and if your misunderstood it can can have serious consequences - Quiet how Eric Schmidt still has a job I dont know given his propensity for gaffes that makes Prince Phillip seem diplomatic.
I have worked for a boss who was a FSTE 100 director and he was very good at explaining that he couldn't always tell us every thing that he knew.
"But I was talking about the how people will perceive your comment - you came a cross as taking a hardline "Caveat emptor" line."
I'm sorry you got that from my post. It was certainly not the intent. But if I was unclear, I'll accept responsibility for any misinterpretation that has resulted.
I tend to use overly elaborate sentences. Speaking more plainly and clearly would do me a lot of good. That's a consistent problem I have on HN, and it's my fault.
If I had to sum up my OP in three sentences, it would be as follows: "People are smart, and they'll figure out if you're keeping things from them. So don't hide things from them that affect them. That being said, it's not necessarily your responsibility to get too far into the weeds on every last detail of how startup financing works."
In general, I'm in favor of transparency. I'm in favor of giving employees an honest deal. I'm in favor of treating employees as partners, not as "human resources." I don't, however, believe the CEO's job is to be the parent figure of everyone in the company. And accordingly, I believe startup employees should educate themselves as much as possible about the risks involved before joining a startup. Some of those risks are outside of the CEO's total control, in fact (e.g., Series A investors, the Board of Directors, M&A processes, etc.).
That's not meant to be a cold, caveat emptor sort of statement. It's just meant to be realistic. Ideally, a good CEO is transparent and honest. He or she should keep employees up to date on the company's finances, and on how things may change if major turning points arise. A good CEO always does the right thing by his or her employees. But the employees should still do their homework. The CEO should be transparent, but the employees should still be capable of self reliance and diligence. It's a two-way street.
(The article, for instance, brings up the case of an employee who's thinking about buying a house. It's not the CEO's job to manage that employee's personal finances. While she should share any pertinent facts with the employee, and perhaps offer solid advice, she's not responsible the employee's personal-life decisions).
I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. And again, I'm very sorry if I was not clearer.
I felt I argued pretty strongly against "ripping off" employees. Here are a few lines from my post:
"give them enough options so that they will win when the company wins, and so that their incentives are aligned with yours."
"And the CEO should not use her superior financial knowledge or position to take unfair advantage of employees who might not have as much information or financial savvy."
It is never okay to rip off employees, or to take advantage of informational asymmetry to give them a raw deal.