how do you give a-players exposure?

the writing i’m most proud of is my essay on the next trillion dollar company being a partnership, which is because A-players want founder-level exposure, and if they can’t get it at your company they will strike out on their own

it naturally begs the question - how do you give someone founder-level exposure?

depends on how you define exposure (it’s certainly not “high base”) and what constiutes founder level (which seems more centered around uncapped upside w/ a downside potentail of “nothing”.

if this were easy - everyone would do it, and it would already be de-risked, but recounting some of the models that exist and some of the models we’re exploring at TextQL

three accessible models

the classic exposure model is the investment banking / consulting one: your base is actually fairly low, but you have guaranteed bonuses that are often 80-500% of the base that you make in a given year, depending on your output. being flexible makes it easier for your business to pay out huge bonuses in a given year, but it has the risk of feeling too close to cash and as a result causing entitlement. it also has no natural expectation-setting mechanic — you don’t really know what it’s going to be since it’s at a leader’s discretion. it also aggregates a whole year of effort, which has weird cyclical incentives w/ recency bias, etc.

bounties are a more incremental version of the above - triggered in repsonse to stimuli, it’s much faster to implement. reinforcement is also strong. scale and nvidia both pay out bounties in the form of equity packages released upon a particulalry hard problem / achievement was completed. bounties are great, but greater requirement of micro-managing / examination means more surface area for others to get upset / fight for credit. even more “good executive” heavy

traunches are a concept that appeals to me after the Tesla - Musk compensation package. notorious gambler that he is, Elon locked in a 10 year 12-threshold comp package that had him receive no cash, and if certain [insane] growth milestones were reached, these scaling triggers would vest. at the highest level, if Tesla 10x’d as a company, Musk would realize $50-100B of value [which Tesla did]. some version of this - evenly scaled among the team, would be an interesting mechanic. promotes teamwork — creates vague freeloader effect, and has the dynamic where if you seriously miss the mark in one year — it could cascade into dramatically exaggerated demoralization. this is the case for all “call your shot” type comp structures

alternative models of exposure still

1. running your own p&l as a standalone (a la scale.com verticals)

what it looks like

• you essentially incubate a new product or service within the larger company, but it operates like its own mini-company. you “own” the p&l and have autonomy in decision-making, hiring, budget allocations, etc.

• in many cases, you’re given a tight mandate to scale a concept from zero to a specific revenue or user milestone.

why it delivers exposure

• you get a near-founding experience because you control revenue and costs. your success or failure is almost entirely self-determined.

• if you knock it out of the park, the upside can be massive (though typically still smaller than “true founder” levels unless you have equity carve-outs).

risks & trade-offs

• could be undone by broader corporate politics—if your parent company changes direction, your p&l might get absorbed or scrapped.

• your autonomy is great in practice, but you still rely on the larger company’s leadership for final approvals and resource allocation.

1. running a corporate subsidiary (a la conglomerate, koch industries)

   what it looks like

   • a larger umbrella entity buys or builds independent businesses, each run by separate leadership teams that still ultimately report to a corporate hq. koch, for example, has many unrelated companies under its wing.

   why it delivers exposure

   • you’re effectively the ceo of your own entity, with more structure and possibly more capital than a typical startup might have from day one. this can give you the “founder vibe” minus the total personal risk of going it alone.

   risks & trade-offs

   • headquarters might still have final say on budgeting and major strategic choices. you might not have the same unbounded upside as a real founder.

   • culture can vary widely. you get founder-like autonomy only if top leadership is hands-off and trusts you to drive.

2. running a partnership subsidiary (a la new funds under the blackstone banner)

   what it looks like

   • an established entity (blackstone) creates new funds or sub-firms. each subsidiary is spearheaded by a partner or key operator, who has significant autonomy in investments, portfolio construction, or strategy.

   why it delivers exposure

   • partners share in the carry (i.e., the performance-based profits), which can be huge if the fund does well. think of it like a mini “startup” embedded in a big brand name.

   risks & trade-offs

   • the brand has certain rules, compliance standards, and reputational concerns. you cannot fully pivot or chase certain high-risk ventures without the blessing of the parent brand.

   • transparency can be limited; you might not truly “see the entire cap table,” so your ownership might not feel as direct as a founding stake.

3. running a franchise (a la mcdonald’s determining what to own)

   what it looks like

   • you operate a business under a large brand’s system and processes. you pay licensing or franchise fees but also benefit from the brand’s marketing, supply chain, and operational playbooks.

   why it delivers exposure

   • you own the local p&l. your profit correlates directly with how well you run the show.

   • you get independence in day-to-day decisions (within the brand’s guidelines) and share in any local upside you create (higher foot traffic, better service, etc.).

   risks & trade-offs

   • the brand sets rules on pricing, vendors, expansions, etc. your “founder” freedom is limited by franchise agreements.

   • there’s an upfront cost and ongoing royalty. if the franchise brand’s broader strategy changes, you can get blindsided.

4. running a majority ownership venture (a la >50% ownership like fractional or blackrock)

   what it looks like

   • the parent company has a controlling stake (51%+). you might be the “founder” of a spin-off, but a bigger fish (the majority owner) calls the major shots.

   why it delivers exposure

   • you can still be the face and driver of the venture. if you negotiate your equity slice, you may have a big personal upside upon success or eventual exit.

   risks & trade-offs

   • even with a solid equity stake, the controlling entity can outvote you on major decisions.

   • if disagreements arise, you might be overshadowed by the corporate parent’s priorities.

5. running a minority ownership venture (a la <49% snowflake ventures / salesforce ventures)

   what it looks like

   • a corporate venture arm invests in your company, but it doesn’t hold a majority stake. you keep control, but you also need to keep the investor happy.

   why it delivers exposure

   • you remain effectively the founder/ceo with real autonomy. the outside investor provides capital, resources, network, and distribution—potentially catapulting growth.

   risks & trade-offs

   • if you rely heavily on that minority investor (for follow-ons, intros, or brand association), you might pivot to appease them. you don’t want them walking away.

   • you’re founder-like for sure—but the large investor’s brand might overshadow your own brand building

6. running a reseller / software integrator (a la deloitte monitor, accenture, ingram micro)

   what it looks like

   • you build a team or practice around implementing, reselling, or supporting a bigger company’s solutions. you get embedded in the bigger brand’s ecosystem.

   why it delivers exposure

   • you can build out a robust business with consistent demand if the partner product is in high demand. the revenue potential is significant if you’re the go-to solutions provider.

   risks & trade-offs

   • you’re heavily dependent on the product roadmap of your partner. if they pivot or fail, your entire practice could go under.

   • margins are typically more predictable, but the upside is usually capped by the resale or services model—less “founder-level,” more stable consultancy.

most decentralized

(at this point, you’re moving further away from a single controlling entity or from having direct governance over a business unit—hence the “decentralized” label.)

beyond the structural or governance-based models above, there are alternative ways to give employees the upside potential (and sense of ownership) they’d have in a startup—often without ceding actual voting rights or direct control.

1. second class of shares traded liquidly (a la waymo shares or openai ppus)

   what it looks like

   • the employee (or group) gets access to a separate share class or “profit participation units” that can be traded or sold on a secondary market (or internally recognized as having a certain value).

   why it delivers exposure

   • creates a sense of real ownership: employees see a direct correlation between the company’s performance and the market value of these shares/units.

   • liquidity can boost retention—if you can sell some portion of your stake, you might stay longer rather than jump ship for a new salary.

   risks & trade-offs

   • share classes can get complicated, and the perceived “fairness” of who gets which class can be contentious.

   • trading can be restricted or lightly regulated, so employees might discover there isn’t as much “liquidity” as they hoped.

2. royalties on contributions (a la tesla/westinghouse patents on acdc, musicians)

   what it looks like

   • instead of a single up-front comp package, employees or contributors receive ongoing royalties whenever their specific ip, patent, or creation is used.

   • in a creative or r&d-heavy environment, that might mean a slice of each licensing deal or a portion of revenue every time a new feature is sold based on the inventor’s patent.

   why it delivers exposure

   • it ties compensation to the actual performance and adoption of your invention or creative work. feels similar to the “founder dynamic” where your payoff scales with success.

   • encourages employees to think strategically about the commercial viability of their work.

   risks & trade-offs

   • hard to implement fairly for large or complex products with many contributors.

   • might discourage collaboration if people feel pressured to protect “their piece” rather than open-sourcing knowledge internally.

3. profit share / revenue share (a la traditional sales commission)

   what it looks like

   • a straightforward model: you earn a percentage of profits or revenues for the deals you close or the products you launch.

   • the structure might be set up like a “true-up” every quarter or year, with a formula that’s transparent to the participant.

   why it delivers exposure

   • similar to founder-level upside in that the better your results, the more you earn. commissions and profit-sharing can be uncapped (in theory), so top performers can make founder-like money.

   • it’s easier to understand than complicated equity packages.

   risks & trade-offs

   • can lead to short-term thinking if the measure is strictly short-term sales or revenue. founders also have to plan for the long haul.

   • might create territorial or “lone-wolf” behavior—people only focus on revenue-generating tasks, ignoring critical but less monetizable functions (like building better internal tools or mentoring new hires).