I design compensation structures for technology companies that hold up when it matters most, when things aren't black and white. I want to be sure that what we build still works for the engineer who no longer codes, for the role no title quite fits, for the talent whose impact transcends their level. All without requiring a full-time rewards function.
Most pay frameworks are organized around how work has looked. The harder problem is building one that reflects how work looks now, and how it will look next.
Ambiguity has become the norm, and rigid structures get quietly abandoned, until you're back to making pay decisions one argument at a time.
I work with organizations to build cash and equity structures that are defensible to leadership, explainable to the employees they impact, and durable enough to survive the next reorg.
Most frameworks can't answer that. The ones I build are made to.
I work with founders & CEOs, CFOs, heads of people, and the VC firms backing them, usually when informal pay decisions start setting precedents.
The roles that drive technology companies are being reinvented faster than pay structures can keep up. A structure built only for today's chart is already behind.
I've built and run these structures inside venture-backed and founder-led companies at the growth stages where informal pay decisions start to carry real weight, and where the wrong structure gets expensive to unwind.