I’ve written a number of pieces about network leadership, but how far can you truly go with this idea?
How about a $4 billion corporation that has achieved such success? a business that is more profitable per worker than Appleh success? a business that is more profitable per worker than Apple. a company that, as a token gesture, reduces Google’s 20% time.
Valve is the company that created the Steam online game distribution and publishing system.The nature of this company may be extremely dissimilar from yours. But don’t stop there.You might pick up a few new skills.
At Valve, 20% time is 100% time, through and through
When you want, work on your favourite projects. You don’t have a boss (and founder Gabe Newell is definitely not it).
But how does a business like this operate? and avoid driving down a cliff in a chaotic jumble.
A company that effectively uses many of the ideas I’ve written about in my articles on network leadership is Valve. And it’s obvious that Valve has mastered the art of perseverance when they take on a concept.
Valve is completely self-governing from within
New hires at Valve are given a manual that describes their organisational structure as “flat.” Nobody has the right to direct you (and even if a colleague did get particularly forceful, you can always just change teams).
The main thesis is that group leadership improves consumer experiences. Projects only get momentum if either (1) enough people think they’re a good idea, or (2) someone is so passionate about them that they become their personal cause.
You might believe that implementing the aforementioned at your workplace will result in a complete lack of productivity. Valve acknowledges that “deciding what to work on can be the hardest aspect of your job at valve.” The key is in the underlying culture and hiring process, making sure that the team is made up of action-takers who are aware of what is most crucial for them and the business.
So how do they achieve this in practice?
Everyone is welcome to participate in the hiring and interview process, and it is strongly encouraged. A lot of emphasis is placed on hiring the right people. Because they will be in charge of the company, Valve emphasise that “every time you interview a potential hire, you need to ask yourself not only if they’re talented or collaborative but also if they can literally run this company.”
In order to foster a true sense of family and community, Valve has made an effort. Every year, they enjoy a one-week vacation with all of the workers’ families.
Physical restrictions have been eliminated, right down to making sure that every workstation in the workplace has wheels so that people may unplug and relocate their workspace to be nearer to coworkers working on related tasks. Each workplace includes a tracker so that you can get onto the intranet and see where anyone else now has their workspace, ensuring that employees can locate one another.
What is the leadership in this model?
Although the overall organisational structure is flat, temporary hierarchical project teams could nonetheless form at any time. Or, to quote Valve, “Structure happens.”
As a project gains pace, leaders emerge with a responsibility to maintain the project’s overall direction and serve as a resource for others to stay current on the project. However, Valve feels that structures that last for a longer period of time “inevitably start to serve their own purposes rather than Valve’s consumers.” This structure is only ever present momentarily.
Are there any checks and balances at all?
Regular, unofficial peer reviews are encouraged and required by Valve of the team. They also have an official annual peer review procedure that adheres to predetermined rules. Peers also rank one another annually based on how useful they are to the business. Pay changes are a result of this rating procedure (up and down).
Also firmly ingrained in Valve’s culture is the practise of measuring almost everything:
We’ve discovered that it’s ideal to carry out almost any action in a method that allows for measurement, outcome prediction, and result analysis.
Valve is extremely happy to remain a privately owned firm, acknowledging that gaining outside funding would have put pressure on its operating technique. It is evident that this type of organisation needs an unwavering dedication from the company’s founders.
However, such a structure is clearly not without its challenges.
And Valve points out several risks from their approach:
- Insufficient strategic planning- Without top-down guidance, there is a tendency to concentrate primarily on the short and medium terms. Employees should try to spend time considering what the long-term objectives should be.
- Formulating long-term projections is challenging
- Burnout and overwhelm- It’s simple to feel like you’re failing and not getting enough done when there are so many things you can be working on. This is one of the reasons Valve has a strong culture of taking breaks and avoiding extended workdays.
- Having trouble orienting themselves in their new workplace are new employees
- A lack of effective mentoring for staff – There is a misconception that “high performance people are self improving,” although some talent may function better in a more caring atmosphere. A lack of appropriate coaching for personnel.
- Information accessibility
- Hiring fresh personnel with knowledge outside of that of Valve
- losing out on talented individuals who want a top-down, more conventional structure
- Finding and getting rid of a terrible hiring
So with eyes wide open, why did they do this?
Adapted from the employee-written New Employee Valve Guide:
“Telling them to sit at a desk and perform what is asked of them obliterates 90% of their worth when you’re an entertainment company that has spent the last decade going out of its way to attract the most intellectual, innovative, talented individuals on earth.”
At Valve, we firmly believe that our system ultimately offers the highest value to our customers. Additionally, it guarantees that the business improves year after year. Removing the obligation to “hire downhill” implies that employees are more likely to choose individuals who will make the greatest contribution to the organisation (under this model, the political motives for recruiting subordinates of a lower skill level disappear).
This stands in stark contrast to an organisational structure that is quite hierarchical. You need at least one person in such a system who is familiar with both the task and the people executing it. One could argue that this leads to an inefficiency that network leadership eliminates.
It almost feels like you’re gazing at another world when you look at Valve. Having said that, there are lessons for all of us in how we may modify parts of their strategy to develop conditions that support effective network leadership.
You should see the Valve Handbook if you have an hour to spare. The one and only HR document you might ever find enjoyable to read!
Recent Comments