In 1971, a graphic design student at Portland State University was struggling to afford oil painting classes. A fortuitous conversation with an accounting professor named Phil Knight changed that and, in one of business history’s great ironies, changed everything else too.

Knight asked Carolyn Davidson to create a “stripe” – the industry term for a shoe logo – for the new line of shoes his company, then called Blue Ribbon Sports, was preparing to launch. She worked up at least half a dozen designs and presented them to Knight and two company executives, who ultimately selected the image now known globally as the Swoosh. Knight’s first reaction? “Well, I don’t love it. But maybe it will grow on me.”

For her services, the company paid Davidson $35, citing 17.5 hours of work, though Davidson maintained she was certain she had worked more. At roughly $2 an hour, it was not a memorable payday. But the story doesn’t end there. Three years after Nike went public, Davidson was invited back to the company’s headquarters for what she thought was lunch with Phil Knight. She discovered it was actually a party in her honour. Along with a gold ring in the shape of her Swoosh decorated with a small diamond, she was handed an envelope containing 500 shares of Nike stock. 

Davidson never sold a single share. Since the stock has undergone multiple splits, those 500 shares are now worth approximately $1 million, and by some estimates, considerably more. The woman who designed one of the most recognisable symbols in branding history, for a fee that wouldn’t cover a pair of Nike sneakers, ended up a millionaire because of equity she never asked for, never planned around, and never cashed in.

It’s a story that captures the central proposition of equity as compensation: the upside can be extraordinary. So can the downside. And any freshly minted MBA or a mid-career professional navigating a job offer may encounter it.

Why Equity Exists at All

At its core, equity compensation is a solution to one of the oldest problems in management theory. How do you make someone who works for you act like they’re working with you?

This is the “principal-agent problem,” the cornerstone of a framework developed by economists Jensen and Meckling in 1976 and subsequently refined by decades of business school research. The theory holds that corporate shareholders have a natural information disadvantage compared with the executives they hire. Based on maximising personal benefits, executives may engage in behaviours that are not conducive to the enterprise. Equity is the proposed remedy: give people a stake in the outcome, and their incentives begin to align with yours.

In practice, the evidence is more nuanced. Empirical research from 1990 onwards has failed to demonstrate a conclusive link between equity-based pay and corporate performance. A study of US compensation data by Carola Frydman at MIT Sloan and Raven (Saks) Molloy on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors concluded that the rise in equity-based compensation did not translate into a direct, predictable increase in corporate performance. And yet equity compensation has grown dramatically over the past four decades, particularly in the United States, driven not by ironclad proof that it works, but by a combination of logic, culture, and competitive necessity.

For early-stage companies especially, the logic is hard to argue with. Employee stock options (ESOs) came into use in the startup industry in the 1970s and ’80s. By paying employees in equity ownership, stock options gave employees the opportunity to invest in the future of their employer and stay long enough to see it grow. Besides incentivising employees to stay and work hard, these compensation plans also retained cash, which was often in rare supply. 

And when it comes to going public with an IPO, research by Kuntara Pukthuanthong at San Diego State University, Richard Roll at UCLA Anderson and Thomas Walker at Concordia University’s Molson School of Business found that among IPOs with extensive ESOs, IPOs with high executive equity ownership outperform IPOs with low executive equity ownership.

The MBAs Are Paying Attention

Equity is increasingly central to how top business school graduates evaluate job offers, and it’s a piece of total compensation that, until recently, has been systematically underreported.

Stock compensation can account for as much as 70% of total compensation, particularly at startups, early-stage companies, and tech companies. Yet most MBA employment reports only disclose base salary and sign-on bonus, rendering the real picture invisible.

At UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, 42.6% of MBA graduates were awarded stock options in a recent graduating class. At Stanford Graduate School of Business, around 41% of the class landed stock-based compensation. These numbers explain a puzzle that has long confused observers: why would so many elite MBAs take apparently lower salaries at technology firms? At Stanford, 28% of graduating MBAs went into technology, which paid lower average salaries than finance and consulting, yet the equity component told a very different story about total compensation.

The pattern holds across stages of company growth. At early-stage “pre-seed” startups, MBAs are likely to secure average base salaries of $80,000 to $100,000 per year, while those at later-stage ventures could see total packages exceeding $200,000 once equity is factored in. 

The Stories of When Stock Options Work

Early Google employees who received stock options for pennies per share became multi-millionaires when the company went public. This is the equity dream when patient, well-placed early belief rewarded beyond any salary negotiation’s wildest ambitions. The same pattern played out at Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and more recently across the tech unicorn generation. Being employee number 47 at a company that becomes a household name is, financially, a different life.

Carolyn Davidson’s case is instructive for a different reason. She didn’t negotiate for her equity, and she didn’t consciously hold it as a financial strategy. She simply never sold. There is a lesson about the psychology required to let it become that. Most people who receive equity sell it the moment they can, often for perfectly rational short-term reasons. The ones who end up most significantly rewarded are frequently those who treated it as a long-term bet, not a cash-out opportunity.

The Cautionary Tales of When Stock Options Don’t Work

For every Davidson or Google early hire, there are thousands of employees who received equity in companies that never delivered. The most instructive failures tend to share common traits: extraordinary valuations, charismatic founders, and a collapse that left employees who had often sacrificed salary in exchange for shares holding nothing.

Not long before WeWork’s office-sharing operation nearly collapsed under scandal in 2019, its backers had pegged its valuation at a staggering $47 billion. Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes’s blood-testing startup, had attracted a valuation of $9 billion before it emerged that its core technology did not work as advertised. 

In both cases, the people hardest hit were not the founders or the venture capitalists, who tend to have portfolio diversification and preferential liquidation rights, but the employees. As WeWork collapsed, an estimated 2,400 employees were laid off. Workers wrote an open letter demanding compensation for their lost equity. According to WeWork’s own statement, two of their three requests were granted, but compensation for lost equity was not among them. 

At Theranos, employees were deeply invested in their employer and at the whim of the company if it went belly up. Startup employees face a clear problem: they are at risk from a lack of disclosure from private companies, and from the illiquidity that comes with companies now staying private much longer. 

The irony is that equity’s power as a retention mechanism – the “golden handcuffs” effect of vesting schedules – can trap good people inside failing organisations for precisely long enough to lose everything. When there is a financial incentive to stick with a company, it can lead employees to feel obliged to do so even if it is not a great fit.

Attraction, Alignment, and the Art of Offering Less

For companies, equity compensation serves multiple strategic purposes simultaneously. Not all of them are purely in employees’ interests.

The retention mechanics are well-established. Equity compensation always comes with a vesting schedule, which provides a built-in retention mechanism. Employees are more likely to stay with a company for the duration of the vesting period to ensure their equity stake is fully unlocked. Equity refresh grants make it possible to continue this mechanism by granting additional equity with a new vesting period. 

Many equity plans include a four-year vesting schedule with a one-year cliff – meaning the employee earns nothing if they leave in the first year, 25% vests after 12 months, and the remainder vests monthly over the following three years. This structure is explicitly designed to align long-term interests, but it also gives the employer a significant advantage: talent is locked in, and the equity cost is deferred until, and if a liquidity event occurs.

On average, startups reserve between 13% and 20% of their total cap table for employee equity. Used well, equity fills the gap between what a growing company can afford to pay in cash and what it needs to pay to attract exceptional people. For a bootstrapped company or a Series A startup competing against well-funded rivals, equity isn’t just a recruitment tool, it’s frequently the only way to play at all.

For employers, the negotiating principle is transparency. Companies that clearly explain the equity mechanics– the percentage stake, the current valuation, the dilution risk, the realistic timeline to liquidity – attract candidates who have made an informed choice to join. That trust tends to compound. Companies that obscure or oversell these mechanics tend to pay for it later in attrition, cynicism, and reputational damage.

The Employee’s Guide to Navigating an Equity Offer

Equity negotiation rewards the informed. Before accepting or rejecting an equity component, several questions are non-negotiable.

What percentage of the company does this represent? The number of shares is meaningless without knowing the total share count. Knowing you have 10,000 shares tells you nothing unless you know whether the total outstanding is one million or one billion.

What is the current valuation, and what would the company need to be worth for your equity to matter? A 0.1% stake sounds small until a company is valued at $500 million, and sounds large until you realise that exit is 15 years away, if ever.

What are the vesting terms, and are there clawback provisions? Some companies maintain vested share repurchase rights, clawbacks, or non-competition restrictions on equity. Most employees who are subject to these don’t know about them until they are leaving the company, having worked to earn equity that does not have the value they thought it did. 

What is the exercise window? Often after leaving a company, the exercise window – the period you have to buy your options – is very short: a few weeks to a couple of months. That means you must decide quickly whether to buy your options or let them go.

When to negotiate? Founders expect candidates to negotiate. The best, and usually only time to adjust your equity grant is before you join. Once the paperwork is signed, those numbers rarely move.

The final calculus is personal. Equity is not a salary, it is a long-term bet on a company, a team, a market, and your own tenure. The risk premium should be honest. Taking below-market cash compensation in exchange for equity is only rational if the equity has a credible path to being worth the difference. Harvard Business School research on equity compensation in startup ventures by Robert White and Ramana Nanda, now the Associate Dean for Enterprise at Imperial Business School makes the point plainly: equity is not only central to attracting and retaining human capital, but critical to aligning incentives between investors and management, and it works best when that alignment is genuinely mutual, not simply contractual.

Turning a Compensation Package into a Partnership

Carolyn Davidson says she is not a millionaire. The accounts of what her shares are actually worth vary, depending on how you count the stock splits and when you run the numbers. She retired in 2000 and spends most of her time working with charities. Of Phil Knight’s decision to give her the shares, she has simply said: “This was something rather special for Phil to do, because I originally billed him and he paid that invoice.”

That matter-of-factness is disarming. The deal that changed her financial life was not negotiated with sophisticated legal counsel. It was not structured around strike prices and cliff vesting and liquidation preferences. It was a gesture of retroactive fairness from a founder who recognised that the invoice he paid in 1971 did not begin to reflect the value of what he received.

The best equity arrangements tend to work the same way. Not because they are legally airtight, but because both sides genuinely believe the other deserves to share in what they are building. That alignment, which no contract can fully manufacture, is what turns a compensation package into a partnership.

For MBA graduates, for freelancers, for senior hires and early employees alike, the question is not simply “how much equity?” It is, do I believe in this company enough to wait? And does this company believe in me enough to share?

Sometimes the answer to both is yes. And occasionally, what starts as 500 shares in a fledgling shoe company becomes something rather more than that.

Interested in this article? You might also like…