What is PeopleAnalyst?

PeopleAnalyst is the front door for people-analytics research: 205+ works indexed and profiled, 40+ citation-grade findings extracted, and peer-reviewed behavioral science translated from academic to actionable — the missing manual for the people analytics you always meant to do.

What is people analytics?

People analytics is not a dashboard. It is behavioral science and statistical inference applied to workforce decisions — a discipline with its own methodology, spanning measurement, organizational design, talent, leadership, and analytics craft.

Why does AI in HR need measurement science?

AI is being deployed in high-stakes people decisions — hiring, performance, attrition — without the measurement science to evaluate whether it works or whom it harms. Construct validity, effect sizes, and criterion validity are the vocabulary for asking an AI vendor the right questions.

How is the research made accessible?

The evidence is indexed and searchable: 205+ works, 40+ citation-grade insight cards, and 8 research arcs, so the right finding reaches the right decision at the right time.

What separates good people measurement from assertion?

Good measurement has a method: construct validity, reliability, and effect-size interpretation are not optional — they are what separates evidence from assertion.

library / libb7a8f37b717c65e1

Slicing Pie Moyer

In a sentence

A practical guide to fairly dividing startup equity while a company is still being built, using a dynamic split called a Grunt Fund that allocates ownership based on the relative value of each contributor's ongoing inputs.

Slicing Pie tackles the single most relationship-destroying question in any startup: 'how much equity does each of us get?' Mike Moyer argues that the two conventional approaches—splitting equity before the company has value or fighting over it after value is created—both inevitably burn people and kill companies. His solution, the Grunt Fund, treats equity ('pie') as a Promise to Issue Equity that is allocated dynamically based on the relative theoretical value of each person's contributions (time, cash, ideas, relationships, facilities, supplies) as they happen. Because startup equity has no real value during the 'Gap' between idea and funding, only relative value can be measured fairly. With clear formulas (like the Grunt Hourly Resource Rate and cash-times-four multiplier), rules for adding and subtracting participants, and worked case studies, the book gives founders a fair, flexible, trust-based framework that keeps teams intact, motivated, and ready to try again—win or lose.

The four lenses

Science
Statistics
Systems
Strategy

The model

A causal model in which fair, dynamic allocation of startup equity based on the relative theoretical value of ongoing contributions drives perceived fairness and trust, which in turn drive contributor motivation, team retention, and ultimately startup viability.

Dynamic Equity (Grunt Fund) Allocationdesign lever

A design lever in which equity ('pie') is allocated continuously in proportion to each contributor's relative theoretical value rather than fixed before or after value is created.

Relative Theoretical Contribution Valuationdesign lever

The consistent method of assigning theoretical relative values to inputs such as time (GHRR), cash (times four), ideas, relationships, facilities, and equipment to compute each person's share of the pie.

Consistency and Pre-Agreement of Rulescontextual condition

The degree to which allocation rules are agreed upon in advance, applied fairly and uniformly, and not changed mid-game, forming a contextual condition for a functioning Grunt Fund.

Perceived Fairnesspsychological state

Each contributor's perception that their contribution is valued and rewarded in a manner consistent with the rewards of others, a psychological state central to the book's thesis.

Trust Among Teampsychological state

The mutual confidence among Grunts that others will treat them fairly and honor promises, a psychological state the book identifies as the foundation of a working Grunt Fund.

Contributor Motivationpsychological state

The drive of Grunts to keep providing time, cash, and other inputs to build the business, energized by feeling valued and by the incremental pie they can earn.

Team Retention and Cohesionbehavioral pattern

The extent to which contributors stay engaged and the herd remains intact rather than leaving, disengaging, or festering with resentment, a behavioral outcome of fairness and trust.

Fair Handling of Departuresdesign lever

The design lever of applying pre-defined, fair rules (with/without cause, buybacks, non-competes) when a Grunt resigns, is fired, or dies, protecting both the individual and the herd.

Startup Viability and Successoutcome metric

The ultimate outcome of the company surviving interpersonal minefields, retaining talent, attracting investment, and building lasting value—or at least parting on good terms to try again.

How they connect

dynamic equity allocation → predicts perceived fairness
relative contribution valuation → predicts perceived fairness
consistency of rules → moderates perceived fairness
perceived fairness → predicts trust among team
perceived fairness → predicts contributor motivation
trust among team → predicts team retention
contributor motivation → predicts team retention
fair departure handling → moderates trust among team
team retention → predicts startup viability
trust among team → influences startup viability

The story

The reader An early-stage founder or Grunt who wants to build a company from almost nothing and reward everyone fairly for their contributions.

External problem

The founder has no money and must use equity to attract and compensate people, but has no fair way to divide it.

Internal problem

They feel anxious, awkward, and afraid that the 'how much do we each get' conversation will breed resentment and destroy relationships.

Philosophical problem

It is just plain wrong to burn hardworking teammates by allocating equity unfairly, whether through greed or ignorance.

The plan

Appoint a single Grunt leader to manage the fund.
Assign a fair, consistent theoretical relative value to each contribution (time, cash, ideas, relationships, facilities, equipment).
Track everyone's inputs continuously and calculate each Grunt's percentage as their contribution divided by the total base value.
Apply clear rules when adding or removing participants so everyone is treated fairly.
Freeze the fund and formalize equity when the company builds real value or receives significant (~$1M) investment.

Success

Everyone feels fairly valued, trust and morale stay high, and the team stays intact.
Equity flexibly reflects real contributions without painful renegotiations.
Even if the company fails, the team parts on good terms and jumps back in to try again together.

At stake

Resentment, backstabbing, and low morale suck the fun and momentum out of the startup.
Relationships are burned—accidentally or deliberately—leaving disgruntled, undervalued contributors.
Good companies die not from market failure but from unfair equity allocation and the interpersonal fallout.

Questions this book answers

How should founders and early contributors fairly divide equity in a startup that has no real value yet?
Why do fixed equity splits made before or after value creation cause conflict?
How do you assign a fair relative value to different kinds of contributions (time, cash, ideas, relationships, equipment)?
What should happen to a person's equity when they leave, are fired, or die?
When should a startup stop using a Grunt Fund and formalize equity?

Glossary

Dynamic Equity (Grunt Fund) Allocation: The practice of allocating startup equity continuously and proportionally to each contributor's relative theoretical value rather than fixing shares before or after value is created.
Relative Theoretical Contribution Valuation: The consistent assignment of theoretical relative values to different contribution types to measure their importance relative to one another.
Consistency and Pre-Agreement of Rules: The degree to which allocation rules are set in advance, applied uniformly, and not altered mid-game.
Perceived Fairness: A contributor's belief that their contribution is valued and rewarded consistently with the rewards of others.
Trust Among Team: Mutual confidence among contributors that others will act fairly and honor promises.
Contributor Motivation: The drive of Grunts to continue providing inputs to build the business.
Team Retention and Cohesion: The extent to which contributors stay engaged and the herd remains intact rather than leaving or disengaging.
Fair Handling of Departures: The application of pre-defined fair rules when a Grunt resigns, is terminated, or dies.

Related in the library