Robyn Shutak is a Partner at Infinite Equity and one of the sharpest minds in equity compensation. She joins me to talk about what happens when equity stops working the way it was designed to - and whether it was ever designed well in the first place.

We get into underwater equity and the real cost of doing nothing about it. Vesting schedules built for a tenure reality that no longer exists. The gap between telling employees they are owners and what the cap table actually says. Why equity in VC-backed companies functions more like a lottery ticket than an ownership stake. And whether giving employees structured choice within their equity grants can close the gap between perceived value and actual value.

We also explore a harder question: if equity compensation depends on stock price cooperation to feel real, what does that tell us about the instrument itself?

Takeaways

• Underwater equity is not a passive problem - inaction sends its own signal and concentrates retention risk among the people you can least afford to lose
• Vesting was designed to protect the cap table, not retain employees - and there is little evidence it does
• Most employees in VC-backed companies hold less than 20% of shares collectively - calling that ownership is a stretch
• Structured choice within equity programs can increase perceived value without increasing spend
• Equity works best when companies treat it as trust, not control

Chapters

• 00:00 Understanding Underwater Equity
• 42:23 Equity Compensation and Volatility
• 51:21 Employee Ownership in VC-Backed Companies
• 01:20:52 The Skeptical Side of Equity Ownership

ICYMI Kim Minnick, Kim Rohrer, and I lost a debate on pay for performance recently. We were debating against Mark Frein, Jessica Zwaan, and their team captain, Matt McFarlane. The whole thing was moderated by the amazing Jessie Schofer.

So we regrouped to chat about what we might have done better, discuss some of the reactions, and we meandered into other areas too.

We got into the history of how pay for performance became the default - how individualism got baked into compensation design, why corporate culture reinforces it, and what it would actually take to change it. We talked about legal personhood and how the way we define corporate success shapes everything downstream, including how we pay people. We got into bias, social media's role in calcifying bad management orthodoxy, and whether systemic change is even possible given the structures most of us are working inside.

If you enjoy this and other episodes of As Discussed... please remember to subscribe, to like, and to share it with a friend that might enjoy listening - this helps tremendously.

Stefan Gaertner has been thinking about pay equity longer than most people have known it was a problem. He's a long-time friend, colleague, and one of the sharpest minds in the field - so when I get him on the show, we have a lot to talk about.

In this episode, we get into the uneven global landscape of pay equity legislation and what that patchwork means for multinational employers trying to build coherent compensation programs. We talk pay transparency - what it's actually changing inside organizations versus what companies say it's changing. From there, we dig into the mechanics: point-factor job evaluation, salary band design, and why the methodology underneath your pay decisions matters more than most HR leaders want to admit.

We also spend real time on flat organizational structures and what happens to pay equity when you strip out the career ladder - and whether that's a feature or a bug. Then we close on AI: what it can genuinely do to support pay equity analysis, where human judgment is still non-negotiable, and why handing compensation decisions to an algorithm is a different kind of equity problem.

Chapters

• 00:00 The State of Pay Equity
• 08:06 Pay Transparency's Real Impact on Business
• 23:06 Point-Based Job Evaluation Systems
• 34:47 Salary Bands and Pay Fairness
• 43:03 Flat Structures, Career Decisions, and Pay Equity
• 1:10:33 AI's Role in Pay Equity