How to Build a Company Together, Fairly, and Transparently? The Device Europe Example

One of the most interesting elements of this strategy is the SAR (Stock Appreciation Rights) program – a solution that combines an ownership mindset with a concern for equitable access to building company value. Maciej Jakimiec – Managing Director at Device Europe, told us about the program.

Maciej Jakimiec – Managing Director at Device Europe.

Maciej Jakimiec (Device Europe): The idea of introducing the SAR program in our company did not emerge as a financial tool, but as a consequence of a certain way of thinking about the organization. When building Device Europe, it was important to me from the beginning that it be a company that thinks long-term: environmentally responsible, transparent, and based on partnership. At some point, the question naturally arose: if we are jointly building the organization’s value, should the growth of that value remain solely with the owners?

The Stock Appreciation Rights program was the answer to this reflection. On the one hand, it addressed a business need, as in the technology and service industry, people are the greatest capital. Their competencies, client relationships, operational, and reputational responsibility genuinely translate into company value. We wanted to strengthen the long-term commitment of key individuals and link their compensation not only to annual results but to the sustainable growth of the company’s value. SAR allows for thinking in a multi-year perspective, not just a single budget.

On the other hand, it was a cultural decision. We are building an organization based on shared responsibility and agency. We do not want strategy to be solely “management-driven,” nor results to be something abstract. The SAR program reinforces the message that individuals who genuinely influence the company’s development are co-creators of its value. This shifts the mindset from “working for the company” to “building the company.”

Maciej Jakimiec: The SAR mechanism involves granting eligible individuals the right to participate in the company’s value growth over a specified period. Participants do not receive shares or stock, and the ownership structure does not change. Instead, they receive the right to a financial equivalent of the company’s value increase, usually after fulfilling specific conditions and the lapse of an agreed period. This solution allows for maintaining the simplicity of corporate governance while genuinely sharing in the growth effect.

For me, it was also important that SAR can be a tool supporting equality and inclusivity, provided it is based on transparent rules. If access to the program results from responsibility, contribution, and measurable results, rather than informal relationships, it strengthens the sense of fairness within the organization. People see that company growth is not an abstract financial category but something in which they have a real stake.
In practice, the program changed the way we discuss strategy. Discussions became more long-term, more concrete, and the financial awareness of the staff significantly increased. Importantly, a stronger sense of shared responsibility for results, reputation, and investment decisions emerged.

For me, SAR is therefore not a benefit in the classic sense. It is rather an element of organizational maturity and an expression of the conviction that responsibility and participation should go hand in hand.

Maciej Jakimiec: When designing the SAR program, we asked ourselves from the outset whether it should be a benefit for a select group or a genuine tool for fostering a culture of shared responsibility. We consciously opted for the latter approach. Therefore, at Device Europe, all employees are covered by the SAR program, regardless of their contract type or employment form.

This was both a business and a values-driven decision. Many inequalities in organizations stem not only from job level but also from the formal status of an employment contract versus a B2B contract, length of service, department, or proximity to management. We did not want the program to reinforce these divisions. Since everyone in the organization genuinely influences its value operationally, relationally, and reputationally, everyone should have the opportunity to participate in its growth.

Naturally, the scope of entitlements is linked to responsibility and role within the organization, but access to the program itself is not limited to a selected group. This is a fundamental difference. The program is not a managerial privilege but an element of a cultural model where the company is treated as a joint venture.

The second important element was the transparency of the rules. The criteria, calculation method, and realization conditions are clearly defined. We avoided discretion, which could lead to feelings of injustice, especially between departments or job levels. Equally important for us was separating SAR from compensation equity issues. First, we ensure fair and transparent pay conditions, and only then do we add the component of participation in value growth.

Maciej Jakimiec: The decision to implement the SAR program was made at a very specific moment in the company’s development. On the one hand, we are an organization with a 30-year history in the Polish market. Stable, operationally mature, with an established reputation. On the other hand, today we operate like a typical scale-up. We are intensively building new value in Europe, developing international structures, obtaining further certifications, and forming partnerships. This is no longer the stage of “maintaining the business,” but a stage of conscious scaling.

It was precisely this dual identity that made us consider this the right moment. Programs like SAR make the most sense when an organization is genuinely growing and when measurable value growth can be discussed. In a stagnant company, it would be merely a theoretical mechanism. In a dynamically scaling organization, it becomes a real tool for shared responsibility.

In a sense, it was a transition from a company “with tradition” to a company “with European ambition.” I believed that if we wanted to think in terms of long-term growth, responsibility, and institutional maturity, we also had to change how value is shared.

Maciej Jakimiec: We spent two years preparing the project. This time was used not only for legal and structural matters but also for refining the communication method. We wanted the program’s language to be simple and its rules explainable without corporate jargon. SAR, in its construction, is a rather abstract tool, as it refers to the growth of company value, which is not an everyday operational experience. Therefore, translating this abstraction into concrete terms was crucial.

During the implementation phase, we organized meetings in smaller employee groups. These were not one-off announcements but conversations. Each meeting included a presentation and specific examples of how the system works, simulations showing how changes in company value translate into potential benefits for participants. We presented various scenarios: conservative, moderate, and dynamic, to avoid excessive expectations while maintaining realism.

Most importantly, however, SAR was embedded in a broader context. We explained that it is not an additional bonus or a quick benefit, but an element of long-term company value building. If the organization grows, professionalizes, and increases its market value, all participants share in that growth. If development is slower, the mechanism reflects that as well.

Maciej Jakimiec: We were very keen to provide space for questions. Issues regarding risk, time horizon, and the relationship between SAR and base salary often arose. We answered them directly, without simplifying reality. Transparency also means discussing limitations – that value grows over time and that the program is long-term.

Additionally, we ensured that every participant received clear, written program rules. This included a description of the mechanism, conditions, vesting period, and calculation method. The documentation was prepared to be as accessible as possible, not exclusively legalistic. The goal was for everyone, regardless of role, tenure, or financial knowledge, to understand their participation.

Thanks to this approach, the program was not perceived as a complex financial instrument but as a logical consequence of a model where the company is a joint project. Transparency was not just about making the rules available, but about patiently explaining them in dialogue until they ceased to be an abstraction and became an understandable part of the organizational reality.

Maciej Jakimiec: It has been a very short time since the program’s implementation, so it is difficult to speak of a complete cultural shift. However, we are already seeing initial signs. Employees are increasingly asking what they can do to increase the company’s value, how their projects impact results, and what genuinely builds our market position.

Maciej Jakimiec: I would say, first and foremost, that an ownership program cannot be merely a financial tool. If it is to support a culture of diversity and fairness, it must be consistent with the organization’s actual practices. It is worth addressing compensation equity, decision transparency, and clear promotion criteria first. A value-growth participation program cannot mask existing inequalities, as it would only perpetuate them.

The second issue is access. If the program is available only to a narrow group, it sends a clear signal about who the “true value creators” are. If, however, it is designed inclusively and based on measurable contributions, it builds a sense of community and shared responsibility. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully consider participation criteria and communication methods.

The third point is language. The program must be understandable to everyone, regardless of their financial literacy. If people do not understand the mechanism, they will not trust it. Transparency is not just about legal documents, but about patiently explaining the rules and being open to questions.
And finally, you need to give it time. We prepared our project for two years before implementing it. An ownership program changes the way people think about the company, so it should be well-thought-out and embedded in the organizational culture. If it is authentic and consistently implemented, it can become a powerful tool for building a fair, mature organization.