This is a classic story of really good negotiation.
Getting the very serious offer from Twitter was the best thing to happen to Neal.
I can only imagine the negotiation with Google that he must of had. It probably went on the lines of something like this -
"Hey, I really love it here at Google. I am really excited with what we are working on and want to deliver it but this Twitter offer is just something that I can't ignore. I am looking at the financial future of my family and I would be doing them a disservice if I don't consider this offer seriously. Is there anything we can do to just make this offer go away."
Neal had the upper hand. Worst-case scenario for him would be that there would be no change. He would continue to work at Google. Next best case scenario would be that he would be working at another mega-tech company, and getting better compensated with potentially even greater upside.
Google was in a position of weakness in either case. If they did nothing and he left, it would amount to even more collateral damage as others would get the message that Google can't compete and Twitter would make even more offers to others.
By paying him out, they basically paid him the opportunity cost in real dollars that he may have had if he moved to Twitter.
In all of this, Neal's professionalism would have tipped the favor on his side.
I think when you start talking about the financial future of your family, it makes more sense when you're a line employee. But when you're on a salary well into the six figures, it sounds disinegenuous (to me) to say "we're struggling here". By all means go for "hey, I'm in demand and thinking of moving - business is business", but "I'm moving because I'm concerned about my personal finances"?
But then again, I'm not the guy who does salary negotiations...
I appreciate your point of view and to some extent I definitely concur.
I think that's the difference between a professional and an amateur.
Saying something along the lines of - "hey, I'm in demand and thinking of moving - business is business" even if its true, kinda just would make any company want to kick the person to the curve. Maybe not at that moment, but believe me, that person is now on some blacklist. As IT people (and yes, I am generalizing here) we don't fully appreciate the power of being blunt without being blunt. A lot of it has to do with saving face for both sides. It's a skill I even have to work on but for the people that I have seen that are very good at it, they are very effective with their work.
It's like doing a deal with salesperson and afterwards you realize that you maybe got screwed a little bit, but gosh darn it, you still like that salesperson quite a bit. I guess this falls under charisma.
In terms of the financial future, I don't think anyone is talking about anybody struggling in these positions. I wasn't implying that in my statement. What I was implying was that given any rational person (even one with millions), having a choice between making 10x more or 5x more or staying the same, all other things equal, it would be hard to not consider the choice. Money is Money. And, one thing about people that have made the millions, they still tend to consider every dollar as important as the next, since they realize quite rightly how hard it is to make money.
It's very likely that Neal was facing this 5x-10x type of multiplier. I do think that when you are facing the 0.5x-2x multiplier than the decision does become much harder.
At the level being discussed here, I don't think it's a question of avoiding struggle, but rather of ensuring your family's wealth for generations to come. It would be difficult to turn down such an offer, especially if the work would still be interesting.
Some people might be happier if more of the hundred millionaires walked out to pillage flailing competitors. It isn't obvious that VP retention is good for morale.
But it would be cool if Larry Page said "your old org, from intern to director, says you are the the grease in our money machine, we will always pay you more than any one else would offer, and we want you to find out how high we can reward you"
Getting the very serious offer from Twitter was the best thing to happen to Neal.
I can only imagine the negotiation with Google that he must of had. It probably went on the lines of something like this -
"Hey, I really love it here at Google. I am really excited with what we are working on and want to deliver it but this Twitter offer is just something that I can't ignore. I am looking at the financial future of my family and I would be doing them a disservice if I don't consider this offer seriously. Is there anything we can do to just make this offer go away."
Neal had the upper hand. Worst-case scenario for him would be that there would be no change. He would continue to work at Google. Next best case scenario would be that he would be working at another mega-tech company, and getting better compensated with potentially even greater upside.
Google was in a position of weakness in either case. If they did nothing and he left, it would amount to even more collateral damage as others would get the message that Google can't compete and Twitter would make even more offers to others.
By paying him out, they basically paid him the opportunity cost in real dollars that he may have had if he moved to Twitter.
In all of this, Neal's professionalism would have tipped the favor on his side.