????大多數公司的選擇會是，無論如何先發放獎金。而這就能讓員工們高興嗎？不見得。因為這是他們預料之內的事。那么，獎金能幫助確定明年的宏偉目標嗎？也不盡然。在沒有達到既定目標的情況下發放獎金等于是在向人們暗示，公司的目標實際上無關緊要，進而也就否定了靠獎金激勵留住員工這種說法。

????更糟糕的是，獎金對于招聘也沒有太大作用。我認識的大多數人在加入一家公司之前，對獎金都有所懷疑。他們不知道公司的目標有多么宏偉，或者他們實現目標獎金的可能性有多大。此外，在工資里還包含一種自我意識的要素，而這種要素在獎金中卻并不存在。在其他待遇平等的情況下，多數人寧愿加入一家提供10萬美元年薪的公司，也不愿意接受年薪9萬美元加2萬美元績效獎金的待遇。這種選擇與規避風險無關，更多的是一種自我肯定，確信自己價值10萬美元的工資。再說，他們完全不清楚能獲得獎金的可能性到底有多大。

????而且，獎金還會造成一種“堆沙袋”的公司文化，因此也是一種糟糕的激勵工具。員工不是想著實現令人不可思議的宏偉目標，而是開始考慮這個目標是否可能實現。如果他們接受一個野心勃勃的目標，他們能否領到獎金。然后，他們就會要求降低目標，選擇最有可能獲得獎金的目標，而這實際上與公司利益背道而馳。

????那么，大公司又有什么不同呢？大公司并不會確立雄心勃勃的目標（增長10%與增長200%的區別），而且員工通常不會像在初創公司一樣，可能獲得公司股權。最重要的是，財務目標能夠得到更好的理解，而且通常都能夠實現。初創公司基于可能的事情進行預測，而大公司則基于可行的事情進行預測。因此，大公司向員工發放獎金更容易操作。

????總之，獎金不是好的招聘工具，也不是留住員工的好工具，更不是好的激勵工具。綜上所述，獎金會損害公司文化，使團隊關注錯誤的目標。

????既然如此，一家初創公司要想招聘員工、留住人才和激勵員工，什么才是有效的薪酬工具呢？答案是股權。給員工支付與公司當前經營狀況相符的公平工資，使所有人都能享受到具有巨大升值空間的股票潛力。如果公司實現了翻四番的目標，公司股權的增值幅度肯定要超過業務增加三倍時的幅度。如果員工未能完成計劃，他們也會明白，雖然股權并未出現大幅增值，但隨著公司不斷發展，他們還是會從未來的股票升值中受益的。沒有了財務獎勵，員工也就不會在工作上玩“空手道”。因為他們知道，只有實現公司的宏偉目標，才能讓手中持有的股票回報實現最大化。

????最好的一點是，股票所帶來的回報量級遠遠高于有可能兌現的獎金。（財富中文網）

????本文作者埃瑞克?帕雷為風險投資基金Founder Collective的主理合伙人。本文原載于其個人博客。

????譯者：劉進龍/汪皓

????Most companies just pay out the bonus anyway. Did that make the employees happy? Not really. They expected it. Did the bonus help set the ambitious goals for the next year? Not really. Paying the bonus below the goal suggested that the goals don't really matter, which undermines the idea that the bonus is a form of motivation that leads to retention.

????Worse yet, bonuses are not effective at recruiting employees. Most people that I know are a bit skeptical of bonuses before they join a company. They have no idea how ambitious the goals are or how likely they are to achieve the target bonus. On top of that, there is an ego element tied to salary that is absent in bonuses. All other things being equal, most people would rather join a company offering $100,000 a year in salary than make $90,000 a year with a potential target bonus of $20,000. That isn't so much an issue of risk aversion, but more of self assurance that they are worth $100,000 salary combined with the unknown of how likely they are to get any bonus at all.

????Bonuses also create a culture of sandbagging and therefore are a bad motivation tool. Instead of wanting to achieve incredibly ambitious goals, employees start to consider whether the goal is likely and whether they will achieve their bonuses if they accept an ambitious goal. By arguing for lower goals, employees are optimizing for getting a bonus while actually working counter to the interests of the company.

????Why are large companies different? At large companies goals are not as ambitious (10% growth vs. 200% growth) and employees typically don't have the equity potential that they have at startups. Most importantly, financial goals are much better understood and typically achievable. Startups forecast based on what's possible. Large companies forecast based on what's probable. It's easier to bonus employees on the latter than the former.

????So bonuses aren't a good recruiting tool. Or a good retention tool. Or a good motivation tool. For these reasons, bonuses damage culture and focus the team on the wrong objectives.

????What compensation tool is effective for recruiting, retaining, and motivating employees at a startup? Equity. Pay employees a fair salary for the stage of the company and keep everyone aligned to the extraordinary equity potential of huge growth. If the company achieves a 4X plan, the company's equity has appreciated more than if it achieves a 3X plan. When employees don't quite achieve plan, they understand that the equity hasn't appreciated as much, but they are still rewarded for the forward progress with assumed appreciation of their stock. Employees have no financial incentive to sandbag because trying to achieve ambitious goals is how they maximize the equity reward.

????Best of all, equity has the potential of paying out orders of magnitude higher than any potential bonus.

????Eric Paley ( @epaley) is managing partner at Founder Collective. This post originally appeared on his blog.