5 ms·

Whenever a question like this comes up among the people that I am mentoring, I like to show them the "T-Shaped Employee" section of the Valve Employee handbook

by dsp1234 12y ago

Whenever a question like this comes up among the people that I am mentoring, I like to show them the "T-Shaped Employee" section of the Valve Employee handbook [0]: "We value “T-shaped” people. That is, people who are both generalists (highly skilled at a broad set of valuable things—the top of the T) and also experts (among the best in their field within a narrow discipline—the vertical leg of the T). This recipe is important for success at Valve. We often have to pass on people who are very strong generalists without expertise, or vice versa. An expert who is too narrow has difficulty collaborating. A generalist who doesn’t go deep enough in a single area ends up on the margins, not really contributing as an individual." [0] - http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.p... page 46

calinet6 12y ago
I think this is the key. It's more wise than it may seem at face value. It's important to recognize the importance of both deep specialization and a broad understanding and ability to connect the dots at the same time.
vitd 12y ago
It just sounds to me like they're saying they only want engineers who already know everything about everything. Sure, I'd want that too if I were hiring, but it doesn't seem very realistic. It also makes me wonder about their ability to manage people with different skill levels and areas of expertise. And of course, having used Steam, I'm not at all surprised.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  That would be a square employee, not a T-shaped one.
  - chaz72 12y ago
    Or perhaps "well rounded"
- d23 12y ago
  Not to me. It sounds like they want people who have a wide variety of shallow-ish knowledge (but still an actual understanding of whatever area it is), while also having very deep knowledge in one or two areas in particular. > It also makes me wonder about their ability to manage people with different skill levels and areas of expertise. And of course, having used Steam, I'm not at all surprised. Weird that that's the conclusion you come to. Valve is an incredibly successful company with over a billion dollars in the bank. They've produced some of the most influential games of the past two decades (Half-life, Counter Strike, TF2, Left 4 Dead, Portal, DoTA2... it's actually hard to name them all).
  - lmm 12y ago
    > they want people who have a wide variety of shallow-ish knowledge (but still an actual understanding of whatever area it is), while also having very deep knowledge in one or two areas in particular Sure; every employer does. But it's dodging the more interesting question, which is: faced with one candidate who has broad but shallow knowledge and another who has deep but narrow knowledge, which do you pick?
    - jschmitz28 12y ago
      If you're Valve, then neither, because you likely have enough T applicants to not have to settle for a | or a __.
  - daemonfire300 12y ago
    Those were mods, and the decided to hire these ppl AFTER they've become successful.
  - jarcane 12y ago
    They also haven't put out an entirely in-house game since the Orange Box. The management failures at Valve have been pretty spectacular, and expensive, of late, it's just that because they are a private company, and because Steam makes all of the money, they can continue to have large expensive failures like the VR or the Steambox until doomsday. Valve is not other companies, and their position is such that it's not advisable to take any too serious advice from how they run things into the real world.
- tonyarkles 12y ago
  I think it's more engineers who know something about everything, and everything about something.
mollerhoj 12y ago
I figure that a degree in CS + some curiosity would give one the horizontal knowlegde, and x years of employment in a specialised field would give the vertial knowlegde.
- malkia 12y ago
  It's different horizontal
boomzilla 12y ago
This is exactly why a lot of people want to do a start up, or at least start a side project that solves a specific problem. You get to to be the expert in that domain, and in order to get the complete product out, you need to be a generalist. Another meme that's been thrown around is: "You are not the complete developer if you've not written a compiler." I don't necessarily buy that, but there is some merit: there is a lot of different skills required in a compiler, from domain modelling and DSL design, to theoretical CS like grammars and parsing, to very practical software engineering such as IO handling, string manipulation, encoding, documentation, etc.
- meric 12y ago
  It is a necessary truism at every abstraction layer there is at least one developer (dead or alive) who has the ability to rebuild the abstraction layer from one layer down. Speaking from a society point of view: The meme thrown around ensures developers learn to do exactly that and keeps the developer work force well trained and skilled, to rebuild things where necessary.
- tomphoolery 12y ago
  I've heard it as "You don't really understand how programming languages (and/or computers) work until you've written a compiler.", which I believe is more accurate. Otherwise you get into that "no true scotsman"[1] logical fallacy, wherein we argue what being a "real" developer means. [1]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
- atmosx 12y ago
  > This is exactly why a lot of people want to do a start up, or at least start a side project that solves a specific problem. You get to to be the expert in that domain, and in order to get the complete product out, you need to be a generalist. Hm, funny thing you mentioned startups. Apart programming related startups, I don't think that startup-ers are "great programmers". I get the feeling that most startup programmers (not all of them, but most of them) are somewhere between average and novice level. I get the feeling that most "great programmers" are not that interested in startup (making money, living the thrill or whatever). Most famous programmers, work in big corps for medium-to-huge salaries and (most of the times) even getting paid to work on their side-projects (Dropbox pays G.V. Rossum for Python-dev, Heroku pays Matz for Ruby-dev, etc.).
j42 12y ago
You hit the nail on the head. Beyond the scope of HR, in my experience it's the mix of both breadth of knowledge (context) and the depth of understanding (skill + experience) that is most useful. Having a high-level understanding allows you to step back outside of the 'work' to instead focus on the objective, and someone with significant background knowledge and experience can utilize that to first conceptualize the optimal approach before hammering the nails. Knowing what to apply, where, and when is equally as important as how. And there are fantastic programmers & hackers on each end of the spectrum, but in my experience developing that contrast is more intrinsically valuable.

by dsp1234 12y ago

calinet6 12y ago

I think this is the key. It's more wise than it may seem at face value. It's important to recognize the importance of both deep specialization and a broad understanding and ability to connect the dots at the same time.

vitd 12y ago

It just sounds to me like they're saying they only want engineers who already know everything about everything. Sure, I'd want that too if I were hiring, but it doesn't seem very realistic. It also makes me wonder about their ability to manage people with different skill levels and areas of expertise. And of course, having used Steam, I'm not at all surprised.

nostrademons 12y ago
That would be a square employee, not a T-shaped one.
- chaz72 12y ago
  Or perhaps "well rounded"
d23 12y ago
Not to me. It sounds like they want people who have a wide variety of shallow-ish knowledge (but still an actual understanding of whatever area it is), while also having very deep knowledge in one or two areas in particular. > It also makes me wonder about their ability to manage people with different skill levels and areas of expertise. And of course, having used Steam, I'm not at all surprised. Weird that that's the conclusion you come to. Valve is an incredibly successful company with over a billion dollars in the bank. They've produced some of the most influential games of the past two decades (Half-life, Counter Strike, TF2, Left 4 Dead, Portal, DoTA2... it's actually hard to name them all).
- lmm 12y ago
  > they want people who have a wide variety of shallow-ish knowledge (but still an actual understanding of whatever area it is), while also having very deep knowledge in one or two areas in particular Sure; every employer does. But it's dodging the more interesting question, which is: faced with one candidate who has broad but shallow knowledge and another who has deep but narrow knowledge, which do you pick?
  - jschmitz28 12y ago
    If you're Valve, then neither, because you likely have enough T applicants to not have to settle for a | or a __.
- daemonfire300 12y ago
  Those were mods, and the decided to hire these ppl AFTER they've become successful.
- jarcane 12y ago
  They also haven't put out an entirely in-house game since the Orange Box. The management failures at Valve have been pretty spectacular, and expensive, of late, it's just that because they are a private company, and because Steam makes all of the money, they can continue to have large expensive failures like the VR or the Steambox until doomsday. Valve is not other companies, and their position is such that it's not advisable to take any too serious advice from how they run things into the real world.
tonyarkles 12y ago
I think it's more engineers who know something about everything, and everything about something.

mollerhoj 12y ago

I figure that a degree in CS + some curiosity would give one the horizontal knowlegde, and x years of employment in a specialised field would give the vertial knowlegde.

malkia 12y ago
It's different horizontal

boomzilla 12y ago

This is exactly why a lot of people want to do a start up, or at least start a side project that solves a specific problem. You get to to be the expert in that domain, and in order to get the complete product out, you need to be a generalist. Another meme that's been thrown around is: "You are not the complete developer if you've not written a compiler." I don't necessarily buy that, but there is some merit: there is a lot of different skills required in a compiler, from domain modelling and DSL design, to theoretical CS like grammars and parsing, to very practical software engineering such as IO handling, string manipulation, encoding, documentation, etc.

meric 12y ago
It is a necessary truism at every abstraction layer there is at least one developer (dead or alive) who has the ability to rebuild the abstraction layer from one layer down. Speaking from a society point of view: The meme thrown around ensures developers learn to do exactly that and keeps the developer work force well trained and skilled, to rebuild things where necessary.
tomphoolery 12y ago
I've heard it as "You don't really understand how programming languages (and/or computers) work until you've written a compiler.", which I believe is more accurate. Otherwise you get into that "no true scotsman"[1] logical fallacy, wherein we argue what being a "real" developer means. [1]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
atmosx 12y ago
> This is exactly why a lot of people want to do a start up, or at least start a side project that solves a specific problem. You get to to be the expert in that domain, and in order to get the complete product out, you need to be a generalist. Hm, funny thing you mentioned startups. Apart programming related startups, I don't think that startup-ers are "great programmers". I get the feeling that most startup programmers (not all of them, but most of them) are somewhere between average and novice level. I get the feeling that most "great programmers" are not that interested in startup (making money, living the thrill or whatever). Most famous programmers, work in big corps for medium-to-huge salaries and (most of the times) even getting paid to work on their side-projects (Dropbox pays G.V. Rossum for Python-dev, Heroku pays Matz for Ruby-dev, etc.).

j42 12y ago

You hit the nail on the head. Beyond the scope of HR, in my experience it's the mix of both breadth of knowledge (context) and the depth of understanding (skill + experience) that is most useful. Having a high-level understanding allows you to step back outside of the 'work' to instead focus on the objective, and someone with significant background knowledge and experience can utilize that to first conceptualize the optimal approach before hammering the nails. Knowing what to apply, where, and when is equally as important as how. And there are fantastic programmers & hackers on each end of the spectrum, but in my experience developing that contrast is more intrinsically valuable.