Valve's flat structure contains “hidden layer of powerful management”(pcgamer.com)
pcgamer.com
Valve's flat structure contains “hidden layer of powerful management”
http://www.pcgamer.com/valves-flat-structure-contains-hidden-layer-of-powerful-management-claims-ex-employee/
6 comments
I'm tired of seeing these headlines based on one employee's departure. I'm not here to defend Valve by any means, but any sufficiently large organization will have the feature in Ellsworth's words that "it is human nature that they will minimize the work that they do and increase the control that they have," regardless of the structure. With that in mind, I think it's equally naive to think that (a) Valve has done something wrong with its organizational structure and (b) any other organization with "more" structure than Valve is doing something wrong. As much as it's become a line for dismissing people in Silicon Valley for a variety of reasons, "lack of (cultural) fit" can be a real thing.
This is pretty interesting. It's unfortunate she went through such an experience, but its insightful to see some new perspective on valve's structure.
Also: there is a difference between fired and laid off, but the article confuses the two:
> 'Did you hear so-and-so was laid off?' It was someone on our project. I was mad. I hopped in the elevator and went straight up to our team - and I found Rick, and he said 'I was fired. You too.'
A little disappointed about their bonus incentives, and i think it hurts them in the long run. Working only on what gets visibility is not how you advance your field or company. When you've got the capital, you give your people the freedom to take risks and explore new ideas. Investing in visibility is how you end up as Microsoft.
Seems like yet another reason to stay small; or at least have a shallow hierarchy. I don't think a company should ever feel like highschool for anyone. Or maybe it just needs an element of design and attention, like anything else that you want to succeed. It's pretty clear what happens when you let it grow on its own; the same thing that happens everywhere else.
Its understandable she's bitter about it; who wouldn't be if they were driving a project at a company they liked working for, and then its all uprooted? Firings/layoffs suck for everyone involved.
Also, good on Gabe for letting her keep the hardware.
Also: there is a difference between fired and laid off, but the article confuses the two:
> 'Did you hear so-and-so was laid off?' It was someone on our project. I was mad. I hopped in the elevator and went straight up to our team - and I found Rick, and he said 'I was fired. You too.'
A little disappointed about their bonus incentives, and i think it hurts them in the long run. Working only on what gets visibility is not how you advance your field or company. When you've got the capital, you give your people the freedom to take risks and explore new ideas. Investing in visibility is how you end up as Microsoft.
Seems like yet another reason to stay small; or at least have a shallow hierarchy. I don't think a company should ever feel like highschool for anyone. Or maybe it just needs an element of design and attention, like anything else that you want to succeed. It's pretty clear what happens when you let it grow on its own; the same thing that happens everywhere else.
Its understandable she's bitter about it; who wouldn't be if they were driving a project at a company they liked working for, and then its all uprooted? Firings/layoffs suck for everyone involved.
Also, good on Gabe for letting her keep the hardware.
Get's downsized and walks away with ownership of the hardware she was developing within the company and is "really, really, bitter."
To respond with a quote or two: "I am really, really bitter. Because they promised me the world and then stabbed me in the back." "I couldn't believe it. The handbook said that if you get too far off course they will tell you about it."
Seems like there's an issue where some people's expectations will always increase at a rate greater than the rewards they are given.
related to company structure, I recently read "Turn the ship around!" and found it to be a great book on leadership (its Harvard business school meets the red october, if you're not familiar)
Anyone have any experience with Leader-Leader at a company? I feel like it would mostly work, but there are some variables I think that might need attention.
Anyone have any experience with Leader-Leader at a company? I feel like it would mostly work, but there are some variables I think that might need attention.