OTOH, I worked for a very small company during dot-bomb that cut salaries and the principals took no pay for a bit but came out the other side--for a decent number of years. Not sure I'd have been better off had they done a "Whelp. We did our best" a few months earlier. As you get larger, decisions obviously have longer runways.
There's always risk/reward evaluations that are made when in these situations. A handful of stories are being tossed around of examples where business owners ran the business to the redline, and then somehow pulled a rabbit out of a hat. These stories ignore that the significant majority of businesses fail. As an point of principal, is it better to bet on being the unicorn rarely, or to be the leader that takes responsibility for their employees consistently?
If I’m going to work at a startup, I want to know that the founders are going to aim for the stars. If they’re going to throw in the towel like this, I’d opt out. The incentive isn’t there with guys who don’t have any balls.
What am I going to do with one more year of pay. Absolute pittance. People who are going to do this should be upfront that they are ball-less.
