Fundraising Operations
Promotion Equity Reviews: Document the Role Change and the Decision
Turn a promotion into a documented equity review without assuming every title change creates a new grant.
What you will learn
- Document the actual change in responsibility behind a promotion.
- Separate a review from entitlement to a new equity award.
- Record the decision basis, exceptions and communication scope.
A promotion is a reason to review compensation context, not proof that a particular equity grant is owed. Start with the sustained change in responsibility, the company’s decision criteria and the person’s existing award records. Then document the review and any required next decisions.
Compare the work before comparing proposed awards
A new title can describe a larger job, recognize work already being done or cover a temporary assignment. Those situations do not provide the same evidence. Write down what changed in scope, decision rights, responsibility and duration. Avoid substituting personal negotiating confidence for a clear role comparison.
The cofounder equity article concerns dividing founder ownership. A promotion review is a different task: evaluating an employee role change within the company’s actual compensation process.
Build the role-change evidence matrix
This fictional review concerns a senior engineer becoming an engineering manager. It is not a model grant size or a conclusion that any award must be made.
Original promotion review brief
| Dimension | Before | After or evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Owns one technical project | Owns delivery across two teams |
| People responsibility | Mentors colleagues informally | Direct management responsibility documented |
| Decision rights | Recommends technical approaches | Defined hiring and delivery decisions |
| Duration | Current role | Permanent role change confirmed, not temporary cover |
| Existing awards | Current records need review | Count, instrument and terms from authorized source |
| Comparison basis | No comparison attached | Relevant internal criteria and distinctions |
| Decision status | Review requested | No new grant approved by this brief |
Each row should point to evidence: a role description, approved organizational change or current award record. Do not put private compensation comparisons into a widely shared document.
Review consistency without inventing a benchmark
Compare how the company applied its own criteria in relevant situations. Record why a proposed exception is appropriate rather than copying a grant number from a different role or a public article. A percentage is not meaningful without its denominator, date and instrument coverage.
FINRA’s stock-award questions reinforce understanding award terms and risks. Explain what an existing award is before discussing a possible new one; do not describe the sum as guaranteed future value.
Separate the decision record from the announcement
- Review finding: What changed, and what evidence supports it?
- Proposal: Is there a proposed award or only a request for further review?
- Authorization: Which actual decision process applies?
- Exceptions: What is different from the normal criteria, and who reviewed it?
- Communication: What can be said now, and what remains unresolved?
A historical equity plan filed with the SEC illustrates that award terms and agreements are separate records. It does not tell another company what to grant for a promotion.
Exercise: permanent change or temporary coverage?
An employee covers a manager’s leave for six weeks while retaining their original role. The promotion review form says “permanent expansion” but provides no approved role change. What should the reviewer fix first?
Example answer: Correct the description to the evidenced temporary assignment, preserve its start and expected end, and ask the appropriate owner how temporary responsibilities are reviewed. Do not assume a new grant is either required or prohibited. Resolve the role facts before the award discussion.
Leave a useful next-step record
Keep the role evidence, review brief and authorized decisions together in Finta Documents. Give the employee a clear account of what was decided and what remains under review, without exposing unrelated people’s records.
The finished artifact is a traceable decision brief. It is more useful than a spreadsheet containing a proposed number with no explanation of the role, approval or communication status.
General education with fictional examples, not individualized legal, tax, valuation or investment advice. Have the appropriate professional review decisions affecting actual awards or transactions.