Your description reminded me of a book:
The Great Game of Business - Jack Stack
It describes employee-owned companies and frames the type of spinoff you described as a positive investment, mutually beneficial, to re-leverage debt and provide growth for leaders that are blocked.
Obviously I don't know the situation and the mindset of leadership, but I wouldn't ridicule what you suggested as stealing their IP. They're getting a % ownership in a company in hopes of it becoming a valuable asset -they'd be making a choice.
Outside of searching the keywords "interview" and "hiring" and looking for what seems relevant, I'd recommend specifically the 4 "Management Trinity" episodes and "Juggling Koan".
source: 5-year manager at a public SaaS company in the Midwest, recently discovered the podcast.
There's a book "Zone to Win" by Geoffrey A. Moore that describes these various transitions for Microsoft and it suggests that it's intentional to transition one business unit at a time.
It sounds good, but isn't good. I think the answer in response to it is to have ammo that both sounds good and is useful, and it'll win out to the smart people.
Or a realistic interpretation of what was intended by having content after "starts at $12 hour" would be that they demonstrated they could both do the work and demonstrate customer service skills, and began earning more like $25/hour to get to that "up to 70k/year" more easily.
Home loan which re-amortizes to the full term every month so when you pay ahead on it, the amount lowers over time. Snowball your home loan, easily marketable.
I started scribbling numbers on paper without looking down when I got to the hard ones, which helped...but I still think the hard ones were slightly easier than medium ones.
Good question design: forcing you to look ahead simplify things like 69 * 2 - 5 / 7 ...
realizing that 69 is one smaller away from being evenly divisible by 7, when doubled is 2 smaller, minus 5 makes it 7 smaller so the divided by 7 can apply to the thing it's close to...140 as well as the 7 smaller..140/7 minus 1...19
Good post. I don't understand why they focused on share price. Companies routinely do reverse share splits pre-IPO to make the total number of shares what they need to be for the valuation divided by shares to equal $12-18. That point seems to be just a magical desired range for SaaS IPO's. Someone smarter than I may know the reason, but I think they could have hit nearly any share price they wanted to.
It describes employee-owned companies and frames the type of spinoff you described as a positive investment, mutually beneficial, to re-leverage debt and provide growth for leaders that are blocked.
Obviously I don't know the situation and the mindset of leadership, but I wouldn't ridicule what you suggested as stealing their IP. They're getting a % ownership in a company in hopes of it becoming a valuable asset -they'd be making a choice.