I'm not exactly sure why you as a founder should care (nor do I care what exactly you as a founder actually do care about), but many would rather work to make the world better than just "get shit done" that potentially gives the "ones who put their ass on the line" (which doesn't include them? [not following your logic here]) a big reward.
More generally, this is known as alienation of labor. Many humans, when they are reduced to pure commodities, don't feel too great about it and may begin to suffer mentally and physically as a result.
> the "ones who put their ass on the line" (which doesn't include them? [not following your logic here]) a big reward.
The big reward is a big chunk of money. Employees very rarely make a lot of money after an acquisition.
> More generally, this is known as alienation of labor. Many humans, when they are reduced to pure commodities, don't feel too great about it and may begin to suffer mentally and physically as a result.
I never said that. People may not care about your big dream of saving the world and still be experts in their domain and be excited about the technical challenges that come with your idea. I've worked in many industries without caring at all for them (think finance, gambling, advertising) but I was still very stimulated by the technical problems to solve.
There is a big line between not drinking the kool-aid of "we're making the world a better place. Through constructing elegant hierarchies for maximum code reuse and extensibility." and alienation of labor.
>The big reward is a big chunk of money. Employees very rarely make a lot of money after an acquisition.
Yes, I believe that is what you claimed previously. You also seemed to suggest that it was deservedly so (that employees not share in the "big chunk of money")?
> People may not care about your big dream of saving the world
You're changing the parameters. I'm assuming you only care that your product is going to "catch on and make a shitload of money".
The employees are manifesting the product and are the ones who have invested their life in the company. I believe you claimed that employees do not "put their ass on the line" and therefore don't get to share in the "big reward"? What qualifies as putting your ass on the line?
>I never said that.
I didn't say that you said that. I'm saying that what you are describing fits into the more general framework of alienated labor. Feelings of alienation occur when there is little to no connection between the one doing the work and the work itself, which sounds pretty much exactly like what you described. If the game is reduced to "shut up and do what you're told because I write the check" and the employee requires that check to survive, the employee is at high risk of losing autonomy over their work as they may become ever more dependent on their founders and investors (founders and investors may openly exploit this fact). At the same time, the founders and investors may be extracting ever more value from from the company (by which I mean, the employees).
I don't think alienation of labor is a single binary condition. Some work is more alienating than others for various reasons, including founders, investors, managers, colleagues, product, workplace conditions, tasks assigned, etc.
Many people find it alienating to hear founders and investors talk about how they are going to make a shit-ton of money all while claiming that the people doing the actual work haven't put their ass on the line and won't share in the big reward that they are all working to realize.
More generally, this is known as alienation of labor. Many humans, when they are reduced to pure commodities, don't feel too great about it and may begin to suffer mentally and physically as a result.