This post originally appeared at First Round Review.Â
When Molly Graham joined Facebook, the company already had 400 employees, but there was no official performance or compensation system in place. There had been attempts, but nothing stuck. The result: Very little transparency, a lot of one-off compensation decisions, frustration and confusion. Working closely with Sheryl Sandberg and HR chief Lori Goler, Graham set out to change this by going back to the basics.
âIt gave us a chance to start from the beginning and say to everyone, âOkay, here is how salary works. Here is how equity works. Hereâs how bonuses are calculated. Weâre using formulas for all salary increases from now on. Here are the multipliers based on performance,ââ she says. âPeople frequently find compensation and performance management overwhelming or bureaucratic, but we got such a positive response when we implemented this first system and explained it to the company. People were grateful. A system that was relatively simple, clearly communicated, and fair made a huge difference.â
Graham emerged on the other side realizing how valuable a solid, standardized compensation system can be. Today, as Head of Business Operations at Quip, she believes that there is a simple, scalable, transparent compensation system that will work for almost all startups. Here, she shares some of her golden rules for compensation and the system that she thinks strikes the fine balance between a startupâs needs and keeping employees happy.
Since joining the startup world, Graham has talked with a lot of startup founders who struggle with compensation questions like:
- What do you offer to a new hire, particularly a senior leadership role? What if they ask for more?
- What do you do about one-off salary or equity increase requests?
- What do you do about a high performing recent graduates?
- How and when should you offer increases or promotions?
- Should you counter offer if one of your employees gets a higher offer?
âI was lucky to learn from the leadership at Facebook and people like Sheryl, and now I see a lot of founders and start up CEOs spending (or frankly, wasting) a lot of time handling one-off compensation requests or new hire offers, and I desperately want to save them the time,â she says. âIn my opinion, compensation isnât something you should spend a lot of time on in the first couple years of a company. As a CEO, you should be focused on making your company successful, which in turn, makes the equity more valuable. That is what you and your employees should spend all your time on.â
Some Golden Rules for Compensation
1. No one is ever happy with compensation, and compensation has never made anyone happy.
âThis is honestly the number one trap that people fall into with compensation,â Graham says. âCompensation is never going to be the thing that makes people join or stay at a startup long-term (or any company), nor should it be. Compensation is not a healthy version of retention. I know itâs terrifying when someone has a huge counter offer, or youâre trying to recruit that senior leader from a big company, but you should accept upfront that itâs better if they join for the people, buy into the vision, etc., and have to make a hard decision on compensation. They will stay longer. Your goal should be to get compensation off the tableâmake sure that they can live on their salary and have a fair slice of equityâso employees donât think about it except maybe once a year. The best way to do that is to be fair and transparent.â
2. People always find out what everyone else is making.
Never build a compensation system that assumes people wonât know what their peers and teammates are making. They always find out.
âAsk anyone who has managed a team of over ten peopleâeveryone finds out eventually, and the problem is that feelings about compensation are relative not absolute,â says Graham. âYou might be living really well. You might be in the wealthiest 1%, but if thereâs someone sitting next to you who makes twice as much, youâre going to feel insulted. Itâs just a fact. So take that into account when youâre creating your plan. You need to be able to explain (and defend) everything through a logical set of guidelines.â
If youâre leading a small, early-stage company, Graham recommends being as transparent about what people are making as possible. This will put out fires before they start, establish an honest environment, and serve as a nice forcing function for you:
âYou canât be transparent if youâre not paying fair, and if you are, thereâs no reason to not be transparent.â
It gets harder to be transparent as a company grows, so take advantage of the moment while youâre small. Go that extra mile to bake this principle into your culture, even if you know you may have to ease away from it as you grow. Your most valuable employees will remember it, and it will help both recruiting and retention.
3. Create a system that revisits compensation only once or twice a year.
Startup CEOs have so much going on that they shouldnât burden themselves adjusting peopleâs pay on an ongoing basis. This is the logic behind annual compensation evaluations. The single most important thing any employee can do is add value to the company, which will add value to the equity. This should be the prevailing message around compensation.
âTalking about compensation more than once a year is a waste of time for everybody when youâre small,â says Graham. âIf you have a squeaky wheel on the team, you should have a frank, transparent conversation with them, and if they canât get on board, maybe they shouldnât be there. Build a system so you have a set time period to worry about this, communicate that system so people know when to talk to you about it, and youâre done.â
4. On the spectrum between formulaic and discretionary compensation, be as formulaic as you can.
âItâs really, really hard to predict the long-term at a startup,â says Graham. âIf you start using discretion too early about new hires or new performers, youâre going to set yourself up for long-term problems you canât anticipate.â
- What if someone who is a high performer at 10 people isnât quite as good at 50 people?
- What happens when you need to split someoneâs job in three years?
- What if you canât offer quite as much base salary at one point than you can at another?
âYou canât predict peopleâs performance and the state of the business in a year. Itâs a good idea to be conservative.â
âThe name of the game is expectation setting. From the moment you really start getting serious about a candidate all the way through you managing them for years, you want to have one process and a very consistent message,â says Graham. âOne of the worst things you can do with compensation is change your message.â
At Quip, every hiring manager sits down with their prospective candidates to explain how the company manages salary and equity. Everyone gets the same talk. âWe tell them, âEverything we do is formulaic,ââ she says. âWe explain how everyone in the company that has a certain amount of experience gets paid exactly the same, we explain that we donât negotiate and see how they react.â
The system
âBefore you ever give anyone numbers, you need to have a conversation about how your company thinks about compensationâsalary, equity and how theyâre managed,â says Graham. âDonât jump to the numbers, first explain the framework. That will start things off on the right foot.â
The earlier a startup can put a plan in place to manage compensation conversations and questions, the fewer problems theyâll have in this area going forward. With this in mind, Graham says there are three places where a company needs to focus on compensation and have specific ideas about how to handle it.
When you hire someone
Startups have a particularly hard time towing the line at this part of the process. âFounders donât want to draw hard lines because they feel this need to do anything to get talented people in the door, but theyâll end up paying for that decision later,â says Graham.
Itâs not unusual for a young company to hire someone for twice what theyâre paying other people in a similar role because they donât want to lose the hire. But this impulse can lead to damaging imbalances, widespread unhappiness on the team, and overblown expectations for the individual.
âMost startups overpay for talent because they undervalue their own equityâso the candidate will too,â says Graham. âYou have to remember that when people are joining your company, theyâre making a bet on its future and the value they will add to its future. Sometimes you need to remind them they are making a bet, and that itâs the kind of bet you have to make if you want to join a 10-person company.â
To change a candidateâs perception of your equity offering, supply them with the numbers and enough information so they can estimate the low, medium and high outcomes based on public equivalents.
Equity will always be a crap shoot when it comes to market rates. 0.1% of your company is probably not equal to 0.1% of another company, so you need to help every candidate understand the potential value of the equity youâre offering them without making promises.
âNo matter how smart the people who walk in the door, many wonât understand how to value their equity.â For this reason, one of the best things a founder can do really early onâeither in writing or a speech at an all-hands meetingâis to educate everyone about what theyâre looking at. âYou can say, âYou have 15,000 shares,â but thatâs pretty meaningless. Even 0.1% is meaningless. You should also give them the most recent valuation of the company, the number of outstanding shares and the basis point.â They can do the math from there, and you should encourage them to think both about the best and the worst case scenarios so they truly evaluate the risk theyâre taking and the possible reward. First and foremost, any new hire should be looking at what their equity will be worth in 2 to 10 years, not what itâs worth today.
âAt Facebook we literally put together a guide to understanding your equity when we made offers,â Graham says. âIt was simple to do and made people feel more comfortable with the offers we were making.â
One of the best things you can do with new hires is not negotiate.âNegotiation on salary and equity can reward the wrong kind of people and the wrong kind of behavior,â says Graham. âIf you negotiate, youâre primarily rewarding people who are good at negotiating.â This is probably not the skill set youâre focusing on hiring at an early-stage startup, and talented engineers are often not the strongest negotiators.
This can be hard when you start hiring business-oriented people because theyâre hard-wired to negotiate, but you should hold firm. âAt Quip, we just say, âLook, we base equity on your employee number and itâs a formula. We can talk about the numbers as much as you want, but we donât negotiate on either salary or equity.â Weâve generally gotten a very positive response,â she says.
Quip has also let candidates walk out the door because they werenât comfortable with salary. âWe know we pay competitively and sustainably (we have multiple people with families, etc.), and we want people to join because they love the product and the team. We also want to hire people who care about the companyâs burn rate and know that salaries are the biggest part of that for most companies. These are hard conversations to have, but they set up a much better system and a much happier team over time.â
So what should you do? One of the simplest ways to find a fair base salary for someone is to create three different levels â that way you leave room for people to grow â and pay everyone at the same level the same amount. That makes leveling your people the only discretionary part of the system.
For equity, you also have to figure out the starting place thatâs right for your company, but employee number is an easy proxy for the amount of risk people took when joining. That way you can decrease the percentage of equity you give out by a set amount for each employee that joins. Graham recommends comparing this percentage to market rates to make sure you donât fall behindâbut do keep in mind that equity is not equivalent between companies.
Using this system, Graham provides an example that should work for a post-Series A company:Â

Notably, she proposes keeping salaries the same for senior executives working in engineering and marketing/operations. This goes back to the desire for fairness, that salary information is never opaque, and the need to generate a feeling that everyone is working together to make the company a success. âRemember that if you value the business side of your company differently from the engineering side, you are sending a cultural message. That doesnât mean itâs wrong, itâs just good to be conscious of.â
Annual milestones and performance reviews
Graham suggests reviewing compensation on a formal basis once a year for the following reasons:
- It enables you to defer all compensation conversations to just this one time.
- It allows you to do the research to ensure that all salaries are still even with the market.
- It gives you all the data you need to decide whether to offer high performers more salary or equity.
While Graham recommends scheduling compensation reviews in December or January to help people reflect on the year before and look forward to the year ahead, she says startups should do whatever is right for their business. There might be different seasonality that dictates when this should happenâideally when people and managers have the time and energy to be thoughtful about their peers.
Every new hire should be informed that compensation reviews only happen once a year. There should be no exceptions. âThe moment you break this systemâeven if someone has a higher offer from another companyâyou undermine yourself and teach people that all they need to do to get more money or stock is to ask for it or get another offer. Donât do it.â
When you do evaluate compensation, get the market data ahead of time from your lead VC firm. You want to make sure youâre still competitive, and if you discover youâre lagging, consider a blanket increase across the board.
In addition to providing competitive salaries for the market, you should explain what that means to your employees. âWhat is market when it comes to compensation, and how is it defined? What does it actually mean?â Donât leave people wondering where you got your data set or how credible youâre being on this issue.
 âNo one should join a startup for the cash, but you also want people to be able to live well.â
Performance reviews shouldnât be confused with management reviews. Graham has seen situations emerge where real feedback is only provided to employees around annual performance evaluations. âAt startups itâs particularly important to have a completely different framework for when you tell people how theyâre doing, tell them how to improve, and give them advice for managing their performance,â says Graham. âPersonally, I do weekly one-on-ones with my team and quarterly dinners with each person. I use these meetings to manage performance on an ongoing basis. You donât want people to confuse receiving feedback with how much theyâre going to get paid.â
When you donât commit to regular check-ins, it can take way too long to spot poor performance and fire the people you need to cut from the team. It can also prolong the time it takes to bring people into new roles if someone is stretched and close to burnout. âOne of the biggest mistakes a founder can make is to link compensation and performance management. They should be treated and communicated separately at every opportunity.â
Startups should avoid performance-based increases for the first couple years an employee is with the company. As an early employee, most of the value people should be getting is the increase in the value of their equity as the company grows. Giving people performance bumps will get complicated and potentially unfair fast.
As Graham puts it, everyoneâs energy should be going to equity for a while â nobody should be getting raises before a Series B is raised unless itâs about getting them up to market rate. âIf people are working head down to increase the overall value of the company, that increases everyoneâs reward, and that should be a good incentive.â
But, the logic follows, if an increase is absolutely necessary, it should come in the form of equity â not base salary.
âWhen youâre thinking about increases, itâs not always correct to say that someone senior inherently creates more value than someone junior,â says Graham. âModel it both ways and decide what is right for you.â
If you decide to do equity increases, she suggests that startups determine a number of shares they want to pay out to everyone based on the current pool and valuation. âIn addition to the pool, you should decide on a number of performance ratings â usually 3 ratings is sufficient for a small company.â The management team should then look at the entire employee base and assign a performance rating to each employee. This evaluation should take both their teamwork and individual work into account.
âDebate and discuss individuals and the whole team. If the company isnât doing well, the employee performance ratings should reflect that. This is a good time to be honest and reflective.â Make your top rating special. Only put a small percentage of people in that bracket â like 1 to 2 people if youâre at 30 or less employees, or 1 to 5 if youâre at 50 or less,â says Graham. âAnyone who goes through this process and itâs clear that theyâre âjust doing okayâ should be on the path to getting fired â particularly if youâre in a phase where youâre scaling fast. It sounds harsh, but itâs usually right for the business.â
To give startups a framework to approach performance-based increases, Graham has created the following framework:

Exceptions to the rule
Once in a blue moon, a hire will come along, or an existing employee will start killing it, and youâll want to break away from existing salary bands and formulas. This needs to trigger a very deep conversation and consideration.
âGenerally speaking, exceptions are a horrible idea because everyone wants to be the exceptionâand remember, people will find out,â says Graham. âIt reduces fairness and usually wonât actually make the person who is the exception as happy as you want them to be.â
Given these repercussions, compensation should never be your first answer in this type of situation. You should first try to think of other ways to reward people or make them feel special.
If you are dead set on going this route, however, there are a couple solutions to consider:
- âTry to make exceptions fit into the system,â Graham says. âFor example, put the person at a higher level than their experience dictates â compensate a senior person like a VP, or a junior person like a senior person.â
- Make a huge deal out of the exception to the person in question (not to everyone else). They need to know that you broke your system for them and that itâs a very, very rare occurrence. This communicates both that they are indeed special, but also that it wonât happen again.
 âBeware of shooting starsâjunior people who turn into top performers.â
These employees should be rewarded for their hard work, but that doesnât mean you should ignore areas where they could develop more. âJunior people who are extraordinary often donât get enough constructive feedback, and they end up with huge weak spots,â says Graham. âIf people are always told theyâre the best of the best of the best, and you reward them over and over again, theyâll begin to expect it. It will become the new normal. They will end up leaving the company sooner than you want them to because they canât continue on the trajectory youâve set up for them forever.â
To prevent this situation, she suggests founders and managers create guidelines for themselves so they check whether they are âover-rewardingâ certain employees. You might have to restrain yourself, but it will be better for the people themselves and the company in the long run. âItâs hard to catch the long-term problem before itâs too late unless you plan for it upfront.â
The one core exception to all of these rules (and itâs a big one) is how to compensate sales staff. This is a different animal altogether because you have to build in incentives that impact base salaries and equity. Here, Graham recommends Jason Lemkinâs plan for setting initial sales compensation numbers. The basics of this approach include:
- Offering competitive base salary:Â The catch is that the salesperson needs to bring in the revenue to cover it and their benefits before they can receive any bonus, including commission.
- Paying twice as much in commission: If reps do pay their base back first and 80%+ of reps hit their numbers, you can afford to pay out 20% to 22% in commission instead of the standard 10% to 11%. This makes hitting goals all the more compelling.
- Paying more for cash upfront deals:Â Some deals will come in the form of cash and some wonât. To motivate reps toward the former, pay out more for cash upfront deals and less for the rest. This makes pulling in cash top of mind for everyone.
- Paying upon receipt of cash, not contract signing:Â This helps align everyoneâs interests because youâre offering to pay a pretty hefty sum for high performance while also instilling the value of keeping the company healthy first. Reps might hate the cash-first approach, but theyâll appreciate why youâre doing it.
For all technical, marketing, operations and other roles, Graham says her system will create the same effect: Keeping people connected to the success of the overall company without worrying about whether theyâre being fairly compensated.
To scale Grahamâs plan:
- Keep adding more levels as you increase headcount and people climb the ladder of performance over years at your company.
- Add more rating categories so you can get more nuanced and precise about performance-based increases.
- Make sure you always adjust to the market once a year so that you know for sure that what youâre offering is fair, and that your employees are set up for success in their lives outside the office.
- Donât make exceptions unless you absolutely have to. The more exceptions you make, the greater the disparity will get as time passes and the company grows.
- Consider adding a discretionary equity pool once the company gets bigger so managers have a tool to manage high performers and exceptions.