An interesting article on Valve, who have a "level" structure with no managers. A fascinating contrast with
GW.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24205497
I actually worked for a good many years for a
UK creative Plc that has a few parallels with
GW; I think often the
GW hate doesn't take account of how heinous the Plc system is, of how its most important driver is share price, and how that enforces a particular company structure. I saw my company fall apart with around £600m of bad buys, against which I argued, which saw lots of the best people sacked, while the idiot MD got a decent job somewhere else. Most of the good people went on to good or greater jobs, but there was a tragic amount of loss of value for everyone. I don't necessarily see that happening with
GW, but a top-down structure, together with a bunker mentality, has killed a lot of companies, like mine.
Will short-termism kill
GW? Would axing top-down management be the solution? Is it a way forward for all creative companies?
Or is a level structure one that most people couldn't handle? As in, "" not a comfortable situation for a lot of people."