4 ms·

I joined Valve because "flat management" sounds a lot better than it actually is. I don't think Valve's implementation is especially bad -- I would never join

by bkraz 10y ago

I joined Valve because "flat management" sounds a lot better than it actually is. I don't think Valve's implementation is especially bad -- I would never join another company that has "flat management".

jayjay71 10y ago
Is there a reason you didn't want to join Oculus and continue working on the same (or similar) technology with your colleagues?
- bkraz 10y ago
  The work on VR at Valve was the most stressful point of my career, and I wanted a change (ie not to work on VR anymore). When I left, it was unclear if Valve was going to ditch the whole VR thing. They probably would have done so if HTC hadn't gotten a demo of our amazing tech. My new job at Verily (Google Life Sciences) offered better pay, lower stress, and far more job satisfaction, so it ended up being a good move.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Care to talk about the pros and cons of flat management structures from your perspective?
- bkraz 10y ago
  The biggest problem with flat management is that it isn't really flat. It only means that there is no formal organizational structure. Think of it like the Wild West: It's flat in the sense that you can get away with any behavior if you have enough influence or force. Those who are powerful end up ruling everyone else, making the system anything but flat. I'm not at all convinced this is better than a structured system that tries to ensure fairness (even if flawed). A lot of folks at Valve had very bad experiences with unfit managers (mostly at Microsoft), and I can understand why they developed a system to avoid the nastiness they experienced in the past. It sometimes works well: The unstructured teams appear to be very effective at product maintenance. The products that are already successful and have an established fan base do well with a small group of folks with an informal leader, who doesn't have to make difficult decisions to keep the fan base happy. For new products, there are lots of difficult decisions that affect the future of employees and customers, and it doesn't appear possible for a group to make these decisions together. I spent many, many hours in meetings discussing the same issues repeatedly because there was no leader to make a final decision and allow everyone to get back to work. Instead we just debated without end, causing everyone to become unfocused and demoralized. It's analysis paralysis in the worst way I've ever seen. I now understand why many social groups from primitive tribes to 1st-world nations have leaders and chiefs. It's fine to vote them out when necessary, but having visionary leadership is really critical to development and I don't see how this can be distributed among a group unless each person shares exactly the same vision, which I suppose is possible, but unlikely. I think the best solution is to build structures that greatly reward effective management. Having a good manager is a tremendous benefit to both the company and the manager's reports. Of course, this is easier said than done, but the return on investment spent in this area is really quite high.
  - sloppycee 10y ago
    Reading PeopleWare was a revelation for me, in that cliques and politics are inevitable (it's human nature). It's a company's responsibility to put processes & structures in place to create a _better_ workplace by removing artificial leadership and cliques (in-groups). The idea of a 'flat' organization is laudable, but in practice it is usually a massive failure.

by bkraz 10y ago

jayjay71 10y ago

Is there a reason you didn't want to join Oculus and continue working on the same (or similar) technology with your colleagues?

bkraz 10y ago
The work on VR at Valve was the most stressful point of my career, and I wanted a change (ie not to work on VR anymore). When I left, it was unclear if Valve was going to ditch the whole VR thing. They probably would have done so if HTC hadn't gotten a demo of our amazing tech. My new job at Verily (Google Life Sciences) offered better pay, lower stress, and far more job satisfaction, so it ended up being a good move.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

Care to talk about the pros and cons of flat management structures from your perspective?

bkraz 10y ago
The biggest problem with flat management is that it isn't really flat. It only means that there is no formal organizational structure. Think of it like the Wild West: It's flat in the sense that you can get away with any behavior if you have enough influence or force. Those who are powerful end up ruling everyone else, making the system anything but flat. I'm not at all convinced this is better than a structured system that tries to ensure fairness (even if flawed). A lot of folks at Valve had very bad experiences with unfit managers (mostly at Microsoft), and I can understand why they developed a system to avoid the nastiness they experienced in the past. It sometimes works well: The unstructured teams appear to be very effective at product maintenance. The products that are already successful and have an established fan base do well with a small group of folks with an informal leader, who doesn't have to make difficult decisions to keep the fan base happy. For new products, there are lots of difficult decisions that affect the future of employees and customers, and it doesn't appear possible for a group to make these decisions together. I spent many, many hours in meetings discussing the same issues repeatedly because there was no leader to make a final decision and allow everyone to get back to work. Instead we just debated without end, causing everyone to become unfocused and demoralized. It's analysis paralysis in the worst way I've ever seen. I now understand why many social groups from primitive tribes to 1st-world nations have leaders and chiefs. It's fine to vote them out when necessary, but having visionary leadership is really critical to development and I don't see how this can be distributed among a group unless each person shares exactly the same vision, which I suppose is possible, but unlikely. I think the best solution is to build structures that greatly reward effective management. Having a good manager is a tremendous benefit to both the company and the manager's reports. Of course, this is easier said than done, but the return on investment spent in this area is really quite high.
- sloppycee 10y ago
  Reading PeopleWare was a revelation for me, in that cliques and politics are inevitable (it's human nature). It's a company's responsibility to put processes & structures in place to create a _better_ workplace by removing artificial leadership and cliques (in-groups). The idea of a 'flat' organization is laudable, but in practice it is usually a massive failure.