Startup Compensation Architecture Adviser — Developer Intelligence

The mandate

The Compensation Committee repeatedly confronts the same question: how should a rapidly scaling developer-intelligence business reward founders, executives and scarce AI talent without converting every retention concern into an exceptional option grant? Current bands were built before international hiring, promotion awards overlap with refresh grants, and the financing plan does not show the fully diluted consequences of alternative reward choices.

The adviser will commit three days a month, normally two onsite in Austin and one remote for modelling and chair consultation. Quarterly committee attendance, San Francisco investor-market sessions and one Bengaluru talent review are included, while an urgent paper requires acknowledgement within one business day and a reasoned response within three. The adviser will not become an embedded reward-team operator.

The appointment lasts ten months through the anticipated financing and first annual reward cycle under the new architecture. Renewal for up to six months is available only after the committee reviews decision quality, management adoption and conflicts in month nine. Both the cash retainer and separately approved option opportunity will cease or vest only according to their respective written terms.

The role confers influence, not executive power. The adviser has no line authority, cannot promise pay, allocate grants, alter employment terms, value the company or vote at committee or board meetings, and assumes no fiduciary or operating responsibility. Recommendations go to the Compensation Committee; management remains accountable for implementation, communication, tax and employment-law compliance.

Current work for a competing developer platform, AI coding business, executive-search provider or lead financing investor would be incompatible, as would undisclosed ownership in a compensation-data vendor proposed for use. Other startup reward mandates must be declared with stage, geography and scope, and the adviser may not reuse confidential peer information as supposed market data.

Why the board wants this voice

The committee includes experienced operators and investors but no member who has governed global reward architecture through repeated financing and scale transitions. Founders and the people team each bring legitimate yet different retention incentives, making internal benchmarking politically charged. An independent adviser can connect talent scarcity, performance evidence and dilution into decisions the board can defend to employees and investors.

What you will own

• Challenge the philosophy linking cash positioning, ownership opportunity, performance differentiation, criticality and career stage across executives and scarce technical roles.
• Test the fully diluted effect of new-hire, refresh, promotion, retention and executive grants under base, upside, down-round and delayed-exit scenarios.
• Shape job-level and geographic compensation bands that distinguish durable market evidence from exceptional candidate anecdotes and temporary hiring pressure.
• Press the committee on founder and executive pay decisions using measurable contribution, role evolution, internal equity and financing-stage context.
• Review option terms for vesting, exercise window, leaver treatment, acceleration, milestone proof and communication risk before board consideration.
• Guide management toward a disciplined exception process with accountable sponsors, expiring rationales, equity-cost visibility and retrospective outcome review.
• Equip the committee with a reward decision pack covering affordability, dilution, representation, retention risk and employee-understanding indicators.

Candidate qualifications

• Advised Compensation Committees or served as chief people or reward officer in venture-backed technology companies through at least two financing stages.
• Can evidence an executive and scarce-skill architecture that integrated cash bands, option value, dilution, vesting and performance without relying on percentile labels alone.
• Modelled fully diluted ownership across hiring plans, refresh cycles, fundraising scenarios and exits, with conclusions used in a formal board decision.
• Governed global reward across the United States and India, including geographic differentials, equity communication and practical tax or regulatory dependencies.
• Challenged a founder-sponsored retention award and can show the alternative adopted, the decision evidence and the subsequent talent outcome.
• Maintained confidentiality and data provenance when using investor, survey and search intelligence to advise on sensitive individual compensation.

Non-negotiables

• Can reserve three days monthly and attend the Austin, San Francisco and Bengaluru sessions stated for the ten-month term.
• Will fully disclose current startup, investor, search-firm and compensation-vendor relationships before committee access is granted.
• Accepts no authority to promise remuneration, approve grants, direct employees, establish valuation or speak for the board.
• Has advised at board or enterprise executive level on both cash and equity architecture in a venture-financed technology environment.

1. 49 words maximum. Disclose any current mandate or investment that could intersect with developer tools, AI talent or the next financing.
2. 49 words maximum. Describe one grant request you materially changed and the dilution or performance evidence that moved the committee.
3. 49 words maximum. Can you sustain the stated cadence, including San Francisco quarters and the Bengaluru review, alongside your current portfolio?