Well, first I should say that normally a self-organizing team is just one that selects its own technical leadership structure, rather than having one imposed on them from above. These are teams that receive priorities from management, but otherwise can be left to their own devices in terms of who does the work and how it gets done. Priorities are given at team granularity, and individual productivity is evaluated by discussing team performance with DRs (instead of individual performance).
This is a thing that’s actually done. What I’d like to see more is getting everyday workers involved in product discussions. At most companies this is the fun part, so the people in the trenches get very little say (even though they’re the people who often know best).
Valve’s less like any of the above, and more like Somalia. Priorities aren’t explicitly given; instead, strong personalities (warlords) compete for the fealty of other workers. The workers are responsible for guessing what management’s secret unspoken goals are, and helping the warlords whose ideas best fit them. Management has no way of knowing who is doing the best work, so they base all firing and compensation decisions on gossip. The best way to survive is to ingratiate yourself with gaben’s drinking buddies.
What Valve’s trying to go for is some Ayn Rand **** where ideas compete for finite internal resources, and eventually the resources will get concentrated with the people who have the best ideas, forming some bunch of semi-durable internal companies each delivering finished games. Unfortunately, just like Ayn Rand’s ideas in a broader sense, the outcome isn’t a functional market economy, it’s Somalia.
I am the Stig
