5 ms·

It's very easy to verify that a company provides free lunches. It could take months or years of employment to determine that a company's "flat management" stru

by bkraz 11y ago

It's very easy to verify that a company provides free lunches. It could take months or years of employment to determine that a company's "flat management" structure actually exists in a form that agrees with employees expectations of the designation. They are not the same kind of perk, at all. Flat management may not even be a perk! Good management is a perk. I worked at Valve for several years, and my experience was quite different from what the popular handbook described. It wasn't an especially bad experience, but it wasn't nearly as good as the lore makes it out to be. As you might expect, without written rules or hierarchy, the scene is dominated by social forces. If you put a bunch of people in a room, tell them that there is no hierarchy, then compel them to complete a difficult task, natural human interaction will create a pecking order among other very ugly control systems. Without some rational thought (ie written and mutually-agreed rules and laws), things can turn into Lord of the Flies pretty quickly. It's true that no one tells anyone else what to do at Valve. It's also true that people get fired without warning. Think of it more like the wild west than anything else. Sure, you can be very successful there, but the chaos level might be too high for some folks (me). Check out glassdoor for other anecdotes.

potatoyogurt 11y ago
Relevant reading: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm This is a 1970s article about power structures in the women's liberation movement, which also tried to embrace structureless, "flat" leadership. What you're describing isn't new, it's a lesson that's been relearned many times. I'm not entirely sure that trading explicit power for implicit power is a good thing. It can definitely build a more collaborative atmosphere when done right, but it also can be very disorienting and opaque for new or less savvy people.
- richmarr 11y ago
  For reference, another approach to 'flat' leadership is the Consensus approach used by the Quakers and Occupy movement, amongst others. Discussed recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617665
- Animats 11y ago
  The problem with consensus structures comes when you want to actually do something. That's part of Occupy's problem. They never converged on goals, or an agenda of actions. Few seem to use Robert's Rules of Order any more. (Except union meetings.[http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html] http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html]) Those rules built on the assumption that the goal of a meeting is to make decisions, which are then acted upon. Motion, discussion, vote, on to the next item. Without that kind of structure, the loudest voice in the room tends to win. The military has the interesting convention that the most junior person in the meeting speaks first on a topic. This is to avoid everybody agreeing on an off the cuff bad idea from the senior officer present. [1] http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html
lemevi 11y ago
> It's also true that people get fired without warning. Who decides who is getting fired and for what kind of reasons do people get fired for at Valve? Like how does that process work from top to bottom? Does a general consensus build among some of the people who've been there longer and they start plotting your downfall behind your back, take it to Gabe Newell and then you're out the door? I've read about this before[1] but was curious if you had any more insights. [1] http://www.develop-online.net/news/valve-s-perfect-hiring-hierarchy-has-hidden-management-clique-like-high-school/0115316 http://www.develop-online.net/news/valve-s-perfect-hiring-hi...
- bkraz 11y ago
  In some cases, a really unhelpful or ineffective person will cause enough problems among peers that the situation will be escalated to more senior folks via informal channels. The senior folks compare the badness of the person with other past problematic people at Valve, and ultimately make the decision whether the person should be fired or tolerated because they provide some sort of special value to the company. In many cases, this all makes sense, and works fine. In other cases, the firing does not originate with peers, but with the senior folks. I worked with a guy who was providing solid help with a project. He was fired along with others in the "great cleansing" of 2013, slowing our progress and creating unnecessary turmoil. We were told by the senior folks that this person was bad in the past. He may not be bad now, but his past badness was too much, and he had to go (?!). Who knows if this made sense or not. Information is not freely distributed within the company, so it's often hard to tell why certain things operate the way they do. With proper perspective, it may make sense, but you have to work at Valve for 10+ years to get that perspective.
  - angersock 11y ago
    "great cleansing" of 201 Come on now, you can't just call something that and not elaborate!
    - noelsusman 11y ago
      http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-layoff-hardware-mobile/ http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-layoff-hardware-mobile/
lk145 11y ago
Yep, when I see "flat management" I really hesitate to apply. Especially as a minority in tech, I would rather find a hierarchical place with good managers who value good arguments than trust the herd. Unless you have a team of unusually conscientious engineers, "democratic" or "flat" decision-making often translates to who shouts the loudest. Not to mention engineers often want to complete the project in the most technically exciting way possible, rather than the way that will most benefit the product. Flat structure + too many engineers like that and you end up with this http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2597 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2597, written in Haskell.
- monksy 11y ago
  > "democratic" or "flat" decision-making often translates to who shouts the loudest. Or the one that has the most political capital.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Not to mention engineers often want to complete the project in the most technically exciting way possible, rather than the way that will most benefit the product. Well, this has a habit of happening everywhere, no matter who is running the show.
- codygman 11y ago
  > Yep, when I see "flat management" I really hesitate to apply. Especially as a minority in tech, I would rather find a hierarchical place with good managers who value good arguments than trust the herd. If I were a minority or worse at getting along with others I'd definitely avoid flat management schemes as well. > Agreed Unless you have a team of unusually conscientious engineers, "democratic" or "flat" decision-making often translates to who shouts the loudest. > Not to mention engineers often want to complete the project in the most technically exciting way possible, rather than the way that will most benefit the product. Also sadly true and even has a name: Resume Driven Development > Flat structure + too many engineers like that and you end up with this http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2597 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2597, written in Haskell. Aww, why pick on Haskell here? You know Bump[0] used Haskell. Point being that Haskell can be a choice which is a choice that most benefits the product. I recently had experience writing an app to deal with medical data sets that really benefited from correct by construction or wholemeal[1] programming. 0: https://www.fpcomplete.com/wp-content/uploads/Bump-case-study.pdf https://www.fpcomplete.com/wp-content/uploads/Bump-case-stud... 1: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6957270/what-is-wholemeal-in-functional-programming http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6957270/what-is-wholemeal... Noted as a good example in the stack overflow answer: > I always found the Hutton/Bird Sudoku solver a good example of wholemeal programming: http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/sudoku.lhs http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/sudoku.lhs
omouse 11y ago
>As you might expect, without written rules or hierarchy, the scene is dominated by social forces Isn't that how hierarchical corporations work anyway? If you aren't part of an in-group or friendly enough with a particular department then your coworkers become an impediment to getting things done.
wisty 11y ago
I'd say, if anything, the point of a lot of structures are to force managers to work for the line workers. Most lean manufacturing books will talk about how managers have to go investigate problems raised by employees. Having reports means the manager has some level of responsibility to see that their reports can do their job. A "flat" structure just means that the senior employees (and there are senior employees) never have to do their jobs, because they don't have a team that can fail. As for turf wars - they'll still exist. But nothing's as bitter as a turf war where there's no-one with the authority to sort things out.

by bkraz 11y ago

potatoyogurt 11y ago

Relevant reading: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm This is a 1970s article about power structures in the women's liberation movement, which also tried to embrace structureless, "flat" leadership. What you're describing isn't new, it's a lesson that's been relearned many times. I'm not entirely sure that trading explicit power for implicit power is a good thing. It can definitely build a more collaborative atmosphere when done right, but it also can be very disorienting and opaque for new or less savvy people.

richmarr 11y ago
For reference, another approach to 'flat' leadership is the Consensus approach used by the Quakers and Occupy movement, amongst others. Discussed recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617665
Animats 11y ago
The problem with consensus structures comes when you want to actually do something. That's part of Occupy's problem. They never converged on goals, or an agenda of actions. Few seem to use Robert's Rules of Order any more. (Except union meetings.[http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html] http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html]) Those rules built on the assumption that the goal of a meeting is to make decisions, which are then acted upon. Motion, discussion, vote, on to the next item. Without that kind of structure, the loudest voice in the room tends to win. The military has the interesting convention that the most junior person in the meeting speaks first on a topic. This is to avoid everybody agreeing on an off the cuff bad idea from the senior officer present. [1] http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html

lemevi 11y ago

> It's also true that people get fired without warning. Who decides who is getting fired and for what kind of reasons do people get fired for at Valve? Like how does that process work from top to bottom? Does a general consensus build among some of the people who've been there longer and they start plotting your downfall behind your back, take it to Gabe Newell and then you're out the door? I've read about this before[1] but was curious if you had any more insights. [1] http://www.develop-online.net/news/valve-s-perfect-hiring-hierarchy-has-hidden-management-clique-like-high-school/0115316 http://www.develop-online.net/news/valve-s-perfect-hiring-hi...

bkraz 11y ago
In some cases, a really unhelpful or ineffective person will cause enough problems among peers that the situation will be escalated to more senior folks via informal channels. The senior folks compare the badness of the person with other past problematic people at Valve, and ultimately make the decision whether the person should be fired or tolerated because they provide some sort of special value to the company. In many cases, this all makes sense, and works fine. In other cases, the firing does not originate with peers, but with the senior folks. I worked with a guy who was providing solid help with a project. He was fired along with others in the "great cleansing" of 2013, slowing our progress and creating unnecessary turmoil. We were told by the senior folks that this person was bad in the past. He may not be bad now, but his past badness was too much, and he had to go (?!). Who knows if this made sense or not. Information is not freely distributed within the company, so it's often hard to tell why certain things operate the way they do. With proper perspective, it may make sense, but you have to work at Valve for 10+ years to get that perspective.
- angersock 11y ago
  "great cleansing" of 201 Come on now, you can't just call something that and not elaborate!
  - noelsusman 11y ago
    http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-layoff-hardware-mobile/ http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-layoff-hardware-mobile/

lk145 11y ago

Yep, when I see "flat management" I really hesitate to apply. Especially as a minority in tech, I would rather find a hierarchical place with good managers who value good arguments than trust the herd. Unless you have a team of unusually conscientious engineers, "democratic" or "flat" decision-making often translates to who shouts the loudest. Not to mention engineers often want to complete the project in the most technically exciting way possible, rather than the way that will most benefit the product. Flat structure + too many engineers like that and you end up with this http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2597 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2597, written in Haskell.

monksy 11y ago
> "democratic" or "flat" decision-making often translates to who shouts the loudest. Or the one that has the most political capital.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>Not to mention engineers often want to complete the project in the most technically exciting way possible, rather than the way that will most benefit the product. Well, this has a habit of happening everywhere, no matter who is running the show.
codygman 11y ago
> Yep, when I see "flat management" I really hesitate to apply. Especially as a minority in tech, I would rather find a hierarchical place with good managers who value good arguments than trust the herd. If I were a minority or worse at getting along with others I'd definitely avoid flat management schemes as well. > Agreed Unless you have a team of unusually conscientious engineers, "democratic" or "flat" decision-making often translates to who shouts the loudest. > Not to mention engineers often want to complete the project in the most technically exciting way possible, rather than the way that will most benefit the product. Also sadly true and even has a name: Resume Driven Development > Flat structure + too many engineers like that and you end up with this http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2597 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2597, written in Haskell. Aww, why pick on Haskell here? You know Bump[0] used Haskell. Point being that Haskell can be a choice which is a choice that most benefits the product. I recently had experience writing an app to deal with medical data sets that really benefited from correct by construction or wholemeal[1] programming. 0: https://www.fpcomplete.com/wp-content/uploads/Bump-case-study.pdf https://www.fpcomplete.com/wp-content/uploads/Bump-case-stud... 1: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6957270/what-is-wholemeal-in-functional-programming http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6957270/what-is-wholemeal... Noted as a good example in the stack overflow answer: > I always found the Hutton/Bird Sudoku solver a good example of wholemeal programming: http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/sudoku.lhs http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/sudoku.lhs

omouse 11y ago

>As you might expect, without written rules or hierarchy, the scene is dominated by social forces Isn't that how hierarchical corporations work anyway? If you aren't part of an in-group or friendly enough with a particular department then your coworkers become an impediment to getting things done.

wisty 11y ago

I'd say, if anything, the point of a lot of structures are to force managers to work for the line workers. Most lean manufacturing books will talk about how managers have to go investigate problems raised by employees. Having reports means the manager has some level of responsibility to see that their reports can do their job. A "flat" structure just means that the senior employees (and there are senior employees) never have to do their jobs, because they don't have a team that can fail. As for turf wars - they'll still exist. But nothing's as bitter as a turf war where there's no-one with the authority to sort things out.