>Criticism we've seen from ex-employees, however, suggests that while Valve works for the in-group it can be alienating and anxiety-inducing for others. Multiple ex-employees have now said that Valve's non-hierarchical structure is not what the company says it is, and that projects and people are subject to power dynamics and executive decisions just as they are in any other workplace.
My takeaway. At organizations that pretend to be egalitarian, you're golden if you're in the in-group. But if you're outside of that group, you matter zilch.
>>works for the in-group it can be alienating and anxiety-inducing for others
see also: literally every company in existence.
I realize people tend to become invested in reinforcing the status quo but I am still baffled at how every time Steam comes up 99 out of a hundred comments act as if office politics aren't exactly as powerful and unaccountable as every anecdote about Steam and their cliques.
I think what really galls people is the hypocrisy. The flat hierarchy turns out to just be a feint to mask screwing people. If the first rule is "everyone is equal" then you can never complain about inequality because that's impossible, everyone knows that goes against the first rule.
Yes. Disgruntled employees leave companies all the time. Yet when one leaves Valve it's because their organisational structure doesn't work, not just that that person wasn't a good fit for the company. Meanwhile Valve probably can't hear what people outside are saying over the noise of their money-printing machine.
I really don't understand how criticisms get so much attention, when it's nothing close to a constructive study. It's just some unhappy employee's porthole and it seems to be too successful to dismiss.
...Or that it worked just well enough while they were creating a platform that set them up as a gatekeeper and quasi-manopoly, and works just well enough to maintain it.
Were they actually a flat organization during the development of Half-Life 2 and Steam? I had assumed Gabe stepped back from his authority some time during the development of the Half-Life Episodes. If I had to guess, the transition began some time in late '05 and progressed over the next few years. Just a guess, though.
That us not true. Companies can vlbe more or less anxiety inducing, more or less pleast places to be in and more or less fair. They can be good place for social manipulators or for the rest of people. They can be overworking people or be sleepy.
It is useful to be able to talk about those differences. What people have in mind here is that Valve is way more anxiety inducing then average company.
Politics in traditional companies are accountable and pretty well understood.
You report to your boss who reports to their boss and so forth. Authority is decided based on your title which is largely determined once at interview time. As is your compensation structure which almost never has bonuses being a significant percentage of the total package.
Of course they are subject to power dynamics. The question is whether the dysfunctions of informal power dynamics are worse than the dysfunctions of formalized power dynamics in their economic niche.
The thing is that if you're extremely serious about wanting a flat power structure, you can accomplish this _via_ formal means
There's this false dicotomy between "freedom for people to self-organize" and "formal structures to maintain a system", where people see what pointy-haired suits do and conclude that informal orgs will naturally be better. But _something_ needs to be in place to maintain a good environment.
You see this with people talking about Toyota. So many people see Toyota and think "oh I should do kanban". But kanban isn't the thing, the processes that led Toyota to do kanban is the thing.
Similarly, the objective isn't "have a flat org chart", but "maintain an environment where a formal power structure doesn't weigh down progress for the company". That requires acknowledging the informal power structures and making sure that the players involved are willing to maintain that environment _through_ this informal power structure.
Informal power dynamics do not need to be dysfunctional, if there's a principle driving the players
It was the result of a study by several car companies and several governments to learn what made the Toyota Production System different from the Mass Production systems used in the US.
I would argue against the informal power dynamics as they tend to be far less transparent. Informal systems can be coopted by individuals far more easily, and with far less limitations on their power. Moreover, individuals who do take control of these systems have a for more vested interest in maintaining and expanding their power as they can become very wealthy by doing so. Moreover, when they give up power even well intentioned, good rulers run the risk of reprisal for non-work related reasons. I believe that formal structures emerged as a means to prevent corruption, and ease the integration of new comers.
> Moreover, individuals who do take control of these systems have a for more vested interest in maintaining and expanding their power as they can become very wealthy by doing so.
Exactly. As we all know, these people all much making much more than the upper management at Microsoft or Google, who haven't got any real personal benefit from their position.
I'm essentially in a non-structured position in a structured company, and this is extremely true of my role here. When weighing what things I want to work on for the next quarter, how much clout the a project has internally really defines whether or not I'll be recognized for my work. If you're willing to play the game, it makes it easy to be noticed, but it also means that things that should probably be higher priority and demand more attention get put on the sidelines for projects with a high "cool" factor. Maintenance and testing almost always get pushed to the side.
The key difference between places like Valve and places that have an official hierarchy is that one is official. "In-groups" exist in traditional orgs, too, and they can be just as toxic especially if they are not competent.
Correct. I'd even argue that structure in the ideal sense is more akin to a house than to a toolkit. Less a direct way of getting things done, and more securing (or insulating) people from others so that they may get things done.
- "We seem to have a problem with people seeking power and privilege for their own gain."
- "To prevent it, we should let some people exercise power over others in high-status positions."
Well ideally the corporate hierarchy should be deliberately constructed to put suitable people (skilled, fair, benevolent) in positions of power, and so should be superior to ad-hoc power structures arranged purely based on personal ability to manipulate social situations. Of course, that doesn't always happen...
The sad thing about it is, even if these organizations are truly egalitarian, in whatever sense; there will still be people who feel contrarywise -- that the failure of their ideas is on account of in-groups. It's an interesting catch-22.
My takeaway. At organizations that pretend to be egalitarian, you're golden if you're in the in-group. But if you're outside of that group, you matter zilch.
Basic primate social behavior.