Valve Corporation Employee Reviews about "valve"

Cons

For lack of a better analogy, I think VALVE can best be compared to a department store window display. From the outside, with your nose pressed up against the glass, everything on the other side looks amazing. It's full of new and exciting things, all perfectly arranged and spotlighted with the outside world in mind. From the inside however, behind the display, you soon start to notice the way things were hastily put together, or the items are for display only and don't actually work. The dust and decay is starting to build up in the areas hidden from view and you soon realize this one display window doesn't necessarily provide an accurate representation of the store behind it. While still working at VALVE, I had the opportunity to chat with a number of former employees (including those who left voluntarily and involuntarily) about the positives and negatives of working at VALVE. It's funny how when you are still an employee, you can brush off the critiques and convince yourself everything is great due to the fringe benefits and office environment. Working there, you almost train yourself to ignore your own gut feeling deep down that is telling you something isn't quite right here. Cons: Lack of senior leadership and strategic direction. Gabe Newell hasn't been actively managing the company for years. Besides playing DOTA games in the office and reversing a decision to ban the game Hatred from Steam, I can't think of anything else he has really done in the last few years. To be fair, I don't begrudge him for this and everyone deserves a break at some point, but stop pretending already and officially hand over the reins. Those currently 'running' things don't have the qualifications or drive to do much more then let Steam continue to make money. Strategic goals or long term plans are ill defined or non existent. Those making decisions at Valve confused arrogance for brilliance sometime ago. Instead of making products that customers actually want, Valve jumps from new technology or idea to the next like a schizophrenic playing hop scotch. Expect nothing from Valve over the next few years but micro economies masquerading as games and hardware products nobody wanted or asked for. The project I saw the those at the top put the most amount of effort into was having new offices designed. I guess if you are going to show up to work and do nothing but play games and surf the web, your office should look cool at least. Compensation. Unless you are a rock star in the field Valve currently favors, don't expect 'amazing' compensation. I understand the income disparity between top performers and everyone else is status quo in the tech industry, but for some reason this myth exists that VALVE pays everyone fantastically. It's not true. Especially if you are in a non-tech position, supporting a product or doing any other non-technical work your compensation will be just OK for the Seattle/Bellevue area. Also, if you fall into the latter category do not expect salary matching bonuses, and nobody will ever mention stock options while you are in the room. I think upper management follows the first rule of Fight Club when it comes to options, you do not talk about options. Lack of meaningful performance reviews. The peer review system is one of the worst aspects of working at VALVE. It's basically, stack ranking, but the results aren't based on meaningful data. It really is a popularity contest and who can portray importance/being busy the best. Results are then entered into a system and then stacked against everyone in the company, in theory. I say in theory because I saw the results for an entire group tossed and the previous years rankings used for no other reason then the man in charge was upset and decided to do it that way. So basically, at years end when bonuses are released, you are waiting for an email with a number and you have no clue what it will end up being. Lack of company employee protections and competent human resources department. I mention employee protection because there really is no standard process for termination at Valve. You want to avoid upsetting the wrong person or having a different opinion from someone in the good graces of upper managementrson or having a different opinion from someone in the good graces of upper managementrson or having a different opinion from someone in the good graces of upper management at Valve. Problem is, you don't always know who that is or who has say over your employment status. You can be fired by someone completely outside of your group if they have the ear of a senior leader. In regards to human resources, previous HR managers at Valve actually functioned as HR, providing feedback, acting as mediators and were generally a good resource regarding performance/standing. The HR team today at VALVE act as paper pushers and fill an office requirement. Since they aren't part of the hiring/firing process decision making, anything goes. Personally, after many years of employment, I was let go via a generic email following a group meeting with 1 days notice.

Cons

The culture at Valve is a bit like a cult. There's a party line and if you veer from that, it is discouraged with one-liners rather than discussion. Valve cultivates the image of a company where anyone they hire can choose to tackle anything they want, but in reality, people who cause extra work for management can be fired without warning. The incentives are setup so the people who place themselves around upper management the most and are the loudest about what they're doing (that jives with what upper management likes) will be compensated several times more than those who don't. Therefore, if you can't sell yourself well, then Valve is not a good place to be. Gabe is a brilliant leader, but he is virtually invisible at the company at this point.

Cons

Many of the ways in which Valve seeks to differentiate from other companies are not actually so valid. While it's true that Valve has no official job titles or promotions, compensation varies greatly among employees and many teams have an obvious pecking order. There is no formal management structure, but it's clear that some people have substantially more control over project direction and the work of others. Even though productivity is said to be the only metric that matters, people who are already connected or are accomplished social engineers will do just fine. Denying that all of these social forces are at work makes the problem intractable and difficult to even discuss. For a company that makes so much money, Valve is surprisingly risk-averse. New projects, internal tools, dev infrastructure, and anything that doesn't contribute to a current product are met with disdain. Because teams are intended to be self-forming, it's rare that enough people will want to assume risk to all collectively embark on a new project. It's too safe and too profitable to just contribute to something that's already successful. Even though failure is supposed to be tolerated and even encouraged so that employees will try new ideas and experiments, there is little evidence of this. After a few rounds of bonuses, folks learn quickly what is rewarded, and what is not. Valve's success has made folks arrogant, and this contributes to the problem of how new ideas are considered and discussed. Dogmatic thinking is actually common because people can always point to a great success in the past and use this to justify why everything should continue as it is. Some folks at Valve do not want the company to grow. Valve already has an incredibly strong profit/employee ratio. Why dilute it? This line of thinking crops up in project discussions as well, and causes many ideas to be dismissed because they seem too niche/unprofitable (at the time).

Cons

'Oligarchy' best describes what goes on at Valve. Valve looks like a dream job from far away, but, like with any mirage, if you look closer, you realize that it is an illusion. This company is very big on buzz corporate words. 'we are like a big family' 'we care about your well being' are some of the slogans you will hear or read. If you buy their rhetoric, you'll hear that there are no bosses, no managers, no supervisors and that there is a flat structure where everybody is so smart, so cool and so intelligent that they can work completely autonomously. That is only a facade. There is probably no other company that is so hierarchically structured like Valve. There are no bosses but there are bosses. There are no managers, but there are managers. In order to succeed at Valve, you need to belong to the group that has more decisional power and, even when you succeed temporarily, be certain that you have an expiration date. No matter how hard you work, no matter how original and productive you are, if your bosses and the people who count don't like you, you will be fired soon or you will be managed out. Valve first tries to manage people out, if they think that firing them will cause troubles. They will assign you boring projects that nobody wants, your boss who is not a boss will harass you, they will sit you in a corner and make your life impossible. Their favorite way to insult you is byt giving you a ridiculously low bonus when those who count are getting bonuses in the range of 60 k or even more. You are not allowed to be using terms such as 'boss, supervisor, manager', though. Think about the elephant in the living room. You are not allowed to point out flaws and suggest ways to fix things, otherwise you'll immediately be labelled 'negative'. Valve does not want smart thinkers. Incompetent people are the ones deciding who gets hired and who doesn't. Probably someone who was selling TVs at Best Buy a year before, with no formal education, is going to stand on a pedestal and decide who gets hired. Valve has an intricate but absurd interview system that is meant to give the impression that they only hire geniuses, yet some of the questions they ask during these interviews are risible and surreal. Not to mention that some excellent candidates are rejected either because the incompetent interviewer is intimidated or because they appeared too old for certain departments. Juvanilism and ageism are real in this company but, again, you cannot talk about it openly. Like I said in the beginning, they are big on buzz words and one of them is 'team player'. They overemphasize how important it is to be a team player and how working as a team is paramount, yet, they cannot conceive the existence of certain duties that are best accomplished in solitude or certain employees who thrive when they detach themselves from the stupid team. Valve is an incredibly archaic company that has the presumption of being progressive and innovative. If you fall for the fluff, it looks as if it is super modern, but, once you live there long enough, you are shocked at how such a disorganized and inefficient company has managed to make so much money (mostly by living off on old games and leeching on volunteers like mods). You need to conform to their modus operandi. So, if you are a genius with brilliant ideas, go somewhere else. Everybody at Valve think they are super smart and they even try to adopt the outlook of the typical nerd just because they want to play the role of the super smart person. They want you to believe that they are your friends, and there is a company trip, each year, to an exclusive location beach resort. Who wants to go on a trip with their coworkers? It's bad enough to have to deal with coworkers in the office, let alone having to see them in a bathing suit (and, trust me, with all the free food floating around and the nerdiness at Valve, seeing them at the beach is not a 'belle vue'). Every year they have this company trip, a bunch of people get fired since they forget they are going to a company trip, they let their guard down and get drunk and do stupid things. You cannot have some privacy in this company. They will ask you inappropriate questions, they want to know who you are dating, if you are dating, why you are not dating, how many kids you have. Again, they want to give you the impression that they are your friends.

Cons

The biggest con is that fit can be difficult to measure up front. The company has a difficult hiring process and works hard to measure not just your competence at your role but also your ability to work without a manager and to make high level user/product decisions. This process is tuned towards allowing false negatives and trying to avoid false positives but mistakes in hiring can still be made. For those who end up inside the company and struggle with the environment it can be very painful. Since you don't have a manager it can be difficult to get clear guidance on how to improve and you may get conflicting advice from peers. The company has a yearly ranking/review process that has proven very effective at correctly compensating those who are doing well but I agree with a prior reviewer who stated that it's never been 100% effective at providing useful feedback to those who need help. If you end up being in a situation where you are struggling at Valve you will get some advice and guidance from peers and from HR but you will ultimately need to figure out your path to success on your own. For those used to having a more hands on manager as their advocate this can be hard. Many of the negative reviews here seem to come clearly from employees who struggled at Valve to varying degrees. My experience is that these employees are a small minority due to the difficult hiring process but their negative experiences are still real. The best thing you could do for yourself before working at Valve is to try to really understand the work environmentworking at Valve is to try to really understand the work environmentworking at Valve is to try to really understand the work environment and the high expectations. Once you understand those make sure you are really honest with yourself about whether Valve is likely to be a good fit.

Cons

Valve does not have many Cons. What you put in, is what you will get out in exact proportion.

Cons

To succeed at Valve, you have to be a self-starter. No one will tell you what to do -- if you ask, people may give you an opinion about what they think you should do, but no one hands you a list of your five most important tasks for the next review period. Beyond being a self-starter, you have to come up with ways to judge yourself, or to gather feedback from customers, partners (developers/publishers/vendors), or other employees. I think the comp system works reasonably well, but the feedback system has never functioned well for all employees. When an employee is having trouble, the system (which is really just a group of peers, sometimes guided by HR or more senior colleagues) is more focused and effective at gathering and communicating specific feedback for people. Some people are just driven nuts by the uncertainty of this kind of management and feedback system. Some people thrive and delight in the absence of semi-annual self-evaluation forms. At Valve, it's hard to get a grand project started. It's easy to get a clever, valuable, smaller project started. Turning the latter into the former requires great communication skills or a clever plan of laying out small projects to take the company in the direction you think is smart (and which is confirmed by the outcomes of prior small projects). There are no patrons to make things happen for you. I disagree with a few other (typically former employee- ) reviews that suggest there is secret management structure that controls everything. There are certainly more senior people (who may or may not be more experienced by years of work) who can give great feedback on what is worth doing, or how to do something. But there is incredibly little control, and shadow management is just not true. I think that is often a projection by people who can't believe the uncertainty of radical freedom.

Cons

The idealistic paradise is ultimately undone by a flawed review system. The lack of managers means that a peer review system is necessary, and Valve is very proud of theirs. But their review model is best described as a “popularity contest masquerading as data”. You never know who will (or who has) reviewed you so you have no opportunity to remind them what you have done, or why your work was valuable. Employees react to this review system with strategies such as choosing more visible (even if less valuable) work, announcing accomplishments to the whole company in hopes of being heard by their reviewers, or just hoping that reviewers will remember the work they did nine months earlier. None of these are ideal. Valve strives for a hands-off objective review, but in reality the system is manipulated by those who run it. All employees’ opinions are equal, but some employees’ opinions are more equal than others, and those employees who run the review system have significant impact on how others are evaluated and compensated. You also receive no feedback from your review. You get a bonus, and perhaps a raise, and (rarely) some stock options, but other than those numbers in an e-mail you get no information. There is no indication as to whether you are getting better, or worse, or how you could improve. There is no information about how your performance or compensation look compared to your peers. Many employees don’t even realize when many of their coworkers are getting stock options, and the owners rely on this opacity. Those who get stock options do extremely well, and the others do not. It’s an unacknowledged two-class system. The rational response to this uncertainty is to find a patron – somebody who can guarantee you a good review if you do their bidding. These patrons (the knights) guarantee themselves good reviews by doing the bidding of a higher-level patron (a baron), and the barons pledge fealty to the board members. This unofficial structure necessarily evolved and you opt out of it at your peril. The irony of a hierarchical structure spontaneously forming in Gabe Newell’s company after he has spoken so strongly about the problems of “command-and-control type hierarchical systems” is delicious. As was noted in “The Tyranny of Structurelessness”, “structurelessness becomes a way of masking power”, and this masked power is more insidious than formal power. So, I quit in order to get better compensation, an acknowledged hierarchy, and appreciation for my work.