My Complicated relationship with "sweat equity"
Working in corporate America and being very involved in the startup community means I can't help but notice some similarities between the two. Both seem to fall in love with $2 words like innovation. You don't release prototypes anymore; they're MVPs. Startups love to "disrupt." Corporates are busy "transforming." No matter which world you occupy, it still comes down to a bunch of people trying to stamp their version of a better world on us. It's necessary. It's beautiful. It's messy and I love it. There's just one distinction I make between the two: sweat equity.
The work I do relies heavily on people on my team contributing their own creativity to their work. No one prescribes what they do. No one gives them a map to follow. Instead, they are required to, at times, helplessly wander through the creative wilderness to craft that perfect message. The best work environment for people who do this work is one where their income potential has unlimited potential. I don't mean this to sound like it all comes down to the money. It doesn't. There is something to say about equity, though, the notion that what we put in to a project comes back to us in some form.
When we give a creative a salary, we are saying this is all I'm willing to put into this transaction. Creatives aren't dumb. They know their work isn't art when there is a transaction involving money. If they don't perceive the transaction as being equitable, their attitude suddenly shifts. I've seen it time and again where the creative professional intentionally throttles their work, essentially "playing hard ball" with their sponsor. They disengage and just coast along.
The worst part of all this is the one who pays the price really is the creative.
Years ago, I had the chance to work with a corporate vice president who told me about the concept of sweat equity. He worked in a part of the company making big bets on other companies and he was well-networked in the startup scene. While I knew he was a smart man, I didn't want to agree with him. Why should I put in all this effort if you're still going to pay me an entry-level salary? He could never sway my opinion at the time. It wasn't until years later I realized what I failed to understand. The one thing you must have to get the money you're after in your corporate gig: leverage.
What can you say you actually produce that yields so much value for you to command the price you want? It's a little more fuzzy in the corporate world than in the startup world. Most of you aren't working on commission. You may work a lot. But are you risking anything? Are you shipping work that would make people miss you if you were gone?
I still hate the concept of asking entry-level creatives to work in an environment where their income potential is capped. I feel like it should be more closely aligned with their contributions. People should be encouraged to ship their best work, and be rewarded for doing so. If you happen to work in an environment with capped income potential, there may be a time where your equity comes in the form of sweat. It's not something you'll want to hear, but you need to up your game, work hard every day and don't wait for the corporation you work at to just bend at your will. They say to dress for the job you want, not the one you have. That same idea applies to your work, not just the way you dress. And if you're lucky enough to be in the job you want, make sure you show up.
Bonus
It's really exciting to see a company figure out how to crack the creative-inequity-problem at a corporation. What Gabe Newell created with Valve is the equivalent of what Henry Ford did over 100 years ago.