Environment Valve Employee Handbook Pdf


Monday, July 1, 2019

Employee handbook for Valve Corporation, a maker of videogames. On Friday, a user on the Flamehaus forums uploaded a very convincing pdf, complete with accompanying photo, of a new book called Valve. So Valve is definitely idealized by people outside (and inside) the game industry, but definitely much less so by people who have worked there.

Valve Employee Handbook Pdf

Language:English, Spanish, Japanese
Published (Last):15.06.2016
ePub File Size:24.41 MB
PDF File Size:15.84 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Uploaded by: SCOTTY

This handbook does not constitute an employment contract or binding policy and is Either Valve or an employee can terminate the employment relationship. Valve's Handbook for New Employees. A fearless adventure in knowing what to do when no one's there telling you what to do. Download PDF. Originally uploaded to This handbook does not constitute an employment contract or binding policy and is Either Valve or an employee can terminate the employment relationship.

On Friday, a user on the Flamehaus forums uploaded a very convincing pdf, complete with accompanying photo, of a new book called Valve: Handbook For New Employees. Joining the pdf is an apparent email from Valve's Greg Coomer, saying it was written to "make it as easy as we could for new people to join the company". If you have any interest in Valve as a company at all - and as not only the developers of the Half-Life and Portal series but the overlords of digital shopfront Steam, you probably should - it's a must-read. The company has a reputation as a workplace unlike many others in this business, and if this thing is real, it's a reputation well-deserved. It also has a reputation as being home to some genuinely funny human beings. Again, if this thing is real, it's a reputation well-deserved.

Everyone sees and communicates with each other often ideally. There is no need to call employee 2 assistant general manager or employee 4 programmer V and make him report to 2 and so on. But as the company grows, it stops being flat really. Owners start listening to employees they play golf with. Older employees want to feel special so they'd tell new employees what to do and act as managers.

Potential candidates will detect this type of environment and if they are good at manipulation and social engineering will gravitate and want to work in such a place, because they'll know they'll thrive in there so it attracts certain personalities perhaps as well.

On a more practical level. This system is also used as an advertising tool "oh look we are flat, we don't have titles, we are better than BigCorp". That has worked rather well at recruiting from what I've seen. It also works in another ways -- such as to supress wages.

Because everything is flat, it is easy to justify not giving raises. That might sound overly negative but I just listed all the bad things I could think of. There were many good things too. I think it can work, but it requires a significant effort on both owners and everyone to keep everything in check, to have more communication, more transparency, and so on.

It is a harder balancing act so to speak. That is why in most cases I can see this failing after a while. Dota 2 isn't going anywhere. This is for a tournament that runs every year and is growing in popularity and size.

I think you're right but I also can't help but think how the very existence of Dota 2 underscores Valve's lack of innovation in the past half decade or so. They literally took a game built on the back of their biggest competitor and basically recoded it on their own gaming engine Yes, I know there's plenty of quality of life upgrades they brought to the series, but it was nothing that wasn't too obvious or already in place by another MOBA.

In a business sense, this was an innovative move only in that it made Valve tons more money, but from an industry perspective, they couldn't have done less to move the needle. It's one of the most uninteresting safe bet moves I've seen a company make in the gaming industry since Madden. It was the common sense thing from a consumers perspective to make DotA 2 into a product.

It's just funny that Blizzard didn't manage to be the ones to do it. I remember that at the time when DotA was a popular Warcraft Mod me and my friends were often talking about how Blizzard should do what Valve did with Counter Strike and hire the modders.

In the end Valve made that obvious move themselves, but maybe it's their flat structure that makes it possible for them to absorb external talent that way more easily. The actual innovation in Dota 2 was on the esports side. The competitive Dota scene before Dota 2 came out was tiny in comparison.

Twitch was central to this as well, bigger tournaments meant increased viewers, increased viewers meant that Twitch could in turn sponsor even more tournaments. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't league of legends more responsible for building the robust esports scene for moba's?

It was already there when DotA2 came around, wasn't it? Strom on July 26, Not that big of a time difference, and the difference in prize pools has only increased since then in favor of Dota 2. Twitch was in baby shoes back in as well.

Game streaming overall was still really small, and sites like own3d. In addition, Valve built in-engine spectating into the game since day 1. You can watch other games live, or download replays and jump to any moment in time. League doesn't have similar tech even in [3], they are definitely far more focused on their casual players.

League does have an extremely large playerbase in total, so their esports achievements are still remarkable due to sheer scale, but it's much more of a side-part of League than Dota. Per point 3, it's even gotten as far as becoming a meme in the League community. It's one of the most talked about missing features other than a sandbox mode, which Dota also has. So what? They bought Counter strike from Gooseman, they outsourced half life blue shift and opposing force, they bought the team behind team fortress, they bought the team behind left 4 dead, they bought the team behind dota, I think everyone that plays dota is actually happy about that.

That comparison isn't completely fair: CS and TF were in their infancy when Valve got involved and Valve took big risks developing those games. Valve taking over DotA after DotA had existed for nearly a decade felt more like them trying to play catch up to LoL in a genre market of games that they had nothing in.

Agreed, great for DotA players - but it didn't strike me as being a particularly impressive or interesting contribution to gaming. I think it's pretty fair, CS was already popular and played in tournaments , DotA was also just a mod for warcraft 3, far from being a real game, just maps you could play on. I think your point of view is biased by the fact that you do not play dota, or do not like this genre, etc It was a pretty big revolution in the dota genre.

No, that's incorrect - counter strike was first made in and purchased just one year later by Valve. Whatever tournaments there were they didn't look anything like the esports scene of today.

That's nothing like the DotA acquisition - DotA was more popular as a custom game than WC3 was itself and had been for nearly a decade. There's no way you can discount that just because it ran on top of another game. I don't disagree with you that it was a big revolution in the DotA genre, but if that's as high as Valve was aiming with the game, it's very disappointing given Valve's history of doing so much more than that. That's my point.

It was a boring, uninspired safe bet by a company that can do a lot better. If anything, Riot themselves surfed on the popularity of DotA and innovated very lightly.

I'm not saying Valve innovated by picking up Icefrog and making Dota2, but it's laughable to think that it was built on the back of LoL. GO aren't going anywhere and continue to give Gabe an even bigger pile of money to sleep on. Steam Chat exemplifies this. Despite the fact it's been around for 12 years, there's no file-based logging capability.

When adding mobile clients into the mix, message delivery becomes abysmal. As of nearly a year ago, one rather infuriating bug was introduced that causes chat buffers to sometimes truncate at random. Add to this a privacy policy[0] that considers none of your private communications to be private: I don't have enough information to place the blame squarely at the feet of Valve's flat organizational hierarchy, but it seems likely that it's a contributing factor.

Dota 2 and CS: GO are the only titles Valve has put out in some time, and I'd argue they're not the best examples. Valve has been throwing money and man-hours at Dota 2 relentlessly, but the game's playerbase is still tiny compared to LoL. I imagine they have only a couple more years to try to figure this out before the gaming zeitgeist moves away from traditional MOBAs completely. GO has been in an alternating state of either complete neglect or completely tone-deaf changes.

Most patches from recent memory have been despised by the community and quickly reverted. The game seems to be the red-headed stepchild of Valve properties, run by a skeleton crew of people who don't really understand the game. Meanwhile, Blizzard just blew the doors off the market by revitalizing a game format that Valve invented. I suspect there is a huge internal struggle at Valve right now to determine whether the company will be a content producer or a platform. You are hugely underestimating the size of Dota2.

It is insanely profitable and benefits from having a more mature playerbase, which comes with disposable income. While I don't know much about CS: I disagree at least on one point - I've also played Dota a fair bit in the last few years, and as for Dota, I think parent might be pretty on the money when they say games are moving away from traditional MOBAs. The format is great, but in its 'traditional' form three lanes, jungle, etc , there's only so much you can do with it.

I think the market is pretty ripe for innovation on that format, and Dota won't be able to keep up when it happens. I also agree with parent in that 'Blizzard just blew the doors off the market by revitalizing a game format that Valve invented' - I honestly think it's hard to argue that point. Overwatch is conceptually very, very similar to TF2, and must be doing some damage to its playerbase though I haven't checked any stats on that at all so I might just be talking shit. Isn't that what Heroes of the Storm is though?

It doesn't seem to have been very successful at pulling players away from Dota. True, but I still think it can be done better, and the time will only get more ripe for it as more longtime players quit source: Wake me when they divest themselves of their hats. Dota is over 13 years old by now and still growing. It may have less players than League, but it's by far the most popular game on Steam.

I've played it for over 10 years myself, and I have a very long friendlist of similar people. Dota is a lifestyle, it's more addictive than any other game and people keep coming back to it even against their own wishes.

Valve has been drip feeding people with Dota updates since its launch and I don't expect it to stop anytime soon. Claiming that dota will die in a couple of years should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

As a Microsoft employee I am so happy that we got rid of stack ranking a few years ago. It encourages a bad behavior and goes against helping your coworkers with whom you are essentially competing for compensation.

I am surprised to see that a company like Valve, which seems to be held in high regard by many developers in the industry, still operates with this compensation system. It's system of the 80's if you ask me. AimHere on July 25, I suspect it might work differently in Valve's case. I'm led to believe that Microsoft had a fixed, conventional hierarchy, where every little group and person within the group was backstabbing everybody else to keep their jobs. If their handbook is to be believed, Valve has a much more flat management structure, where it's basically Gabe at the top, sortof, and everyone else doing whatever they think is best for the company, and there's a fluid system where people can move between groups according to their interests and how they perceive they can add value.

So, unlike in Microsoft's case, Valve's people have an easy avenue towards putting 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' into practice. Valve has a radically different corporate culture from most other companies in it's space. It doesn't come from the 80s, or indeed almost any other time.

Perhaps the stack ranking works a lot better because of it. Karunamon on July 25, Part of me wonders if the Valve management structure isn't almost completely to blame for things like their infamously bad customer service. I could see why - dealing with support tickets from irate people is not a particularly interesting or judging by Steam's runaway success: Not that I mean to hijack this to complain about Steam, but you have to admit it's a benefit of a traditional management structure: I suspect it's much more that Valve is an insanely lightweight company for it's customer base.

It has something like employees servicing million customers on the go-to PC gaming platform, and a lot of those employees are working on shiny tech and new games.

As a comparison, Rockstar North's facility in Edinburgh has roughly the same employee count slightly more by Wikipedia's count , and all they do is put out one new game every 5 years or so.

I suspect that if Valve wanted to, it could easily hire lots of people who would be happy to man the customer service helplines and who wouldn't be either able or willing to try to make TF2 levels or whatever. Maybe the management structure is what limits the size of Valve, though. Keyframe on July 25, Rockstar North's facility in Edinburgh has roughly the same employee count slightly more by Wikipedia's count , and all they do is put out one new game every 5 years or so.

All they did was recreate a city full of assets and added game mechanics to it in five years and made the most expensive at the time game product in history with more than people involved in production and the fastest selling entertainment product in history. And that's only GTA 5.

All they did, numerous times so far, was to create vast games full of created digital assets. Games that hold record-breaking sales numbers and hold positions in all best-selling video games charts.

That's all they did. Nothing to write home about, really. Bunch of slackers. What's your point? Valve put out multiple AAA games in the same timeframe too, and did a lot of other stuff besides.

Sure, GTA5 is a big-ass game, but Valve's games - games plural - haven't exactly been small projects either. Rockstar has an army of artists working on those assets for that game.

Publications - Valve Corporation

Valve is a multidisciplinary house where they dabble in a lot of stuff, split in smaller groups, but their primary vehicle is Steam and a couple of successful games where each project does not need as many people. It's comparing apples to oranges.

What Rockstar does demands an army of artists. If Valve were to do same type of game world, they would have an army also. They do not do the same thing though. If Rockstar were to do what Valve does, they would also have a number of people split into smaller teams working on their own things.

That's why you can't say it's all Rockstar does with same number of people. Those people are not the same skill and those projects are not the same. Rockstar's yield, if you're comparing the game industry, is a level above Valve. It's a level above most.

It's really not a good example to compare to. They are on the leading edge of what they do. An area Valve isn't in. Maybe if you've compared Avalanche Studios and Just Cause 3.

They had 75 core-member team in a studio of and, who knows how many, outsourced people. Most game development studios including Valve outsource most of the art related work.

So they can definitely maintain their strength and build a product with scope similar to GTAV. Kurtz79 on July 25, There is no denying Valve does great with the number of people it has, but of all the badly managed companies they could be compared to, Rockstar really it is not a good example Rockstar is certainly doing well profit-wise in the industry, but I think Valve still compares favorably productivity-wise.

They've also developed and supported a new platform, SteamOS, and rolled out hardware with manufacturing partners. Besides this, the Steam platform has added live-streaming like twitch , family sharing, big picture mode, the VR UI, and other features.

These are just what I can think of off the top of my head and don't even explicitly involve any games though they released a collection of 11 small experiences for VR as well. MegaDeKay on July 26, I only wish I could give you multiple upvotes.

Valve has been huge for Linux gaming and if I understand correctly, were a major factor in the push for Vulkan. They can indeed Take My Money. Karunamon on July 26, Most of the stuff Valve is selling nowadays are addons to already existing games. Interesting thought experiment: I suspect Valve will beat them at least twice over. SXX on July 25, Pretty sure Valve outsure all customer support.

Most probably never even publicly known. Few years ago one producer who visited Valve commented that in office there was one of areas where he was told something like "and here is our Steam department". And back then that was like people at most include both partner relations and marketing. Or the Source engine HL2 which evolved from GoldSource HL1 which was based on Quake 1 engine with some parts from Quake 2 engine - even the Call of Duty engine which aged well too is based on the more modern Quake 3 engine, and I wouldn't consider it shiny in Rockstar's RAGE engine as well as Crytek engine StarCitizen, Crysis , and the Frostbite Battlefield 1 are light years ahead and far superior in every aspect and that's what I would consider shiny tech.

Valve is what Valve is today because of the success of steam. They produce little games like Dota2 more for fun than anything else, they gt rich with steam. At least three of those games involve regular ongoing content infusions.

As I pointed out, Rockstar uses more manpower than Valve just to create essentially one game every few years. Even if we assume that those employees are doing nothing but working on Steam, it's still a tiny number compared to the customer base. AirBnB, for instance, has had 2 million listings in it's lifetime, and it has about employees. Uber has over employees on about 8 million customers, and both those cases are ones where people aren't typically regular users.

Which makes whatever Valve does all the more impressive. None of the "blank" games are Valve's IPs but acquisitions which kind of stopped in development or releases after Valve acquisition. Half-Life was their last original IP and even that ended in a complete cliff hanger with Episode 3 or sequel nowhere to be found. It seems that Valve has serious problems actually pushing their games to completion since they started printing money with Steam and pressure to actually release went away.

In no way are these moribund or 'stopped in development'; the latter two are still among the most played and watched competitive games online. It's also stretching things to say that Valve 'acquired' Portal and it was dropped 'after acquisition', since Valve essentially bought the team that made a small gameplay prototype and fleshed out the mechanic into two full-fledged AAA games.

So that just leaves 'Left 4 Dead', which was a case of Valve buying a company, publishing it's game and then putting out a full-on sequel. Given how similar L4D2 was to L4D1 to the point where the first game was essentially contained inside the second, and there was even a threatened boycott by fans , would it really have been a smart move to make a third so soon?

Sure, it's been, what, three years since the last full game release by Valve. That's quite a long time, and there is no doubt less pressure to release sooner because they're sitting on their money-printing machine, but that sort of timeframe isn't exactly unprecedented in this business. The Rockstar studio I mentioned is on a year turnaround for it's one main title - though it does aid and abet Rockstar's other studios. I suspect part of what's going on is that Valve is uber PR-conscious these days, given it's position in the market and can afford to be a ultra-conservative about quality control though hopefully not in game design in any new game it's going to put out.

Portal was a acquire hire, the originsl game was a free game from a students competition. It was a freeware but full game that takes about two hours to complete.

Valve Employee Handbook

Of course the graphic looked worse and there was little narrative, it was a students project after all. Portal 2 was based on additional aquirehire as well colored water splash features , from followup competition, game is freeware as well. Left 4 Dead, company was bought. Team Fortress was a Mod for Quake. Though it took additional 11 years and at least complete restart to release Team Fortress 2 based on Source engine.

CounterStrike was a free Mod from fans for Half Life 1. They aquirehired the team around CounterStrike 0. Some say it went downhill from there. As Source engine is just an incremental evolution, it was just a matter of building the game again and later replacing textures and models with higher ones, etc.

12 Amazing Employee Handbook Examples

Dota was originally a fan-made Mod to WarCraft 3. Valve aquirehired them to create Dota2, a standalone version based on Source engine. Blizzard wasn't amused and announced a similar game a few days after Valve announced Dota2 back then. Half Life 1 GoldSource is based on Quake 1 engine with small parts from Quake 2 engine , and of cource evolved.

Half Life 2 Source engine evolved from GoldSource engine. But Valve decided to shut down both. The unclear situation for several years makes HL fans angry. We all remember also the shitshow around the HL2 release. The infamous HL2 demo at E3 was faked and the game was nowhere to be ready. The leaked video footage a year later showed how far behind Valve was behind the announced release schedule. Half Life 2 was finally released another year later with heavily shortened gameplay and many previously features removed.

Making it basically a different game that feels very differently to the original Half Life 1. Little games like Dota2? It's the biggest title on Steam in terms of players by a large margin and probably the 2nd most popular game worldwide on PC to ever exist behind LoL It also generates a significant amount of revenue for Valve through the sales of tournament ticket and cosmetics.

You don't mention Portal 2, Dota 2, CS: Sure the Battlefield team has made Frostbite which is shinier than Source. Did they also make their own store, gamepad, and VR headset? Got a strong feeling the talent is long gone. Ignores other 9 things. Johan-bjareholt on July 25, Source 2 is in DOTA 2, but that game doesn't show its full potential. Let's just wait for their next game until we say that they are "years behind".

They've tried and they discontinued doing so because they felt it was even worse than being apathetic about it. Sebguer on July 25, What's your source on that? I'm fairly certain that all of Valve's customer support is outsourced, though not specifically overseas, but to contract support teams.

Yeah they actually manage to ship games that manage to make back the entire production budget in pre-orders alone , not just sit on their hands running an online store with an outdated and clunky client. I mean, it's not like traditional companies—from Google to Comcast—consistently provide great customer support either.

So you can't really make strong conclusions about why Valve is having issues there without additional insight; there are too many confounding variables to pin it just on its management structure. This is a common story with people trying something new. If you do the old-fashioned thing—buy IBM, so to speak—and fail , well, these things happen. A lot of factors could have contributed to the problem. But if you try something new , the new thing must be at fault—even though all those other factors apply just as much now as they did in the IBM case.

That's a fair point, but I'm struggling to think of a way in which it isn't at least partially to blame. The handbook and Valve insiders say it's pretty much a do-your-own-thing company.

Who'd want to deal with angry users all day? I work for a software company very much like Valve in structure, who has been operating this way since the 70s. Support still gets done, because when you hire you specifically hire people who love doing support.

Those people exist, and they get tremendously emotionally involved in the quality of their work, just like anyone else. In every department there are people who struggle with the flat hierarchy and free range to work on what you like, who have a strong emotional need to know who is in charge, and to be told what needs doing.

Those people struggle, but they are by no means relegated to any one department -- plenty of them are engineers. Bjartr on July 25, Surely there are some people out there who really do have a passion for, and get satisfaction from, dealing with upset customers.

The questions left are how hard are they to find and how expensive are they to employ. Or someone is making sure to look like their are doing some work. I'm a former MSFT employee that was around when we dropped stack ranking, and I didn't feel like that was a substantial change.

Managers still calibrate you against your peers, a stack is still created, and compensation is assigned accordingly. I remember reviews feeling the same before and after. What changed for you? At any company Microsoft included where performance-based compensation exists, there is a budget for that line item.

Therefore it is a zero-sum game - to pay someone more because of their performance, that means that someone else gets less or zero from that line item.

But the latter definitely cannot be removed if you are to have performance-based compensation. I'd like to point out that it's possible to pay bonuses out of profits, rather than a fixed, yearly pre-allocated pool.

If employees are only paid a bonus when they add to company profits, there is no competition for bonus funds between employees. The problem is, how do you measure that? There are a bunch of good ideas that most people will agree provide a benefit, but it's really hard to come up with an objective measure of how much money that makes or saves. Make the bonus pool a fixed percentage of company yearly profits not sales.

Assign at least half of the bonus pool in an egalitarian way like based on the number of days worked on that year , assign the remainder on a roughtly "merit" based criteria, and let every team to agree on the criteria, but make it be something objective it does not matter if it is number of bugs closed, or being at your desk on time in the morning, or whatever, just as long as the measurement is unambiguous and the team agrees on it.

That would be far from perfect, there will be free loaders, and most likely than not it will be slightly unfair to everyone. But at least you have removed the perverse incentive to sabotage coworkers in order to look yourself better.

If there is no measurable difference, then a bonus cannot be paid out according to this scheme. So we're talking about innovative ideas that release an extra reward in addition to a regular salary , if they result in a measurable saving somewhere. For example: You will be horrified to learn that there is a push to write stack ranking for all public employees into the constitution of Greece.

Wouldn't it make sense to just pay everyone in the same type of role essentially the same amount and then bonus people from time to time on particular outstanding achievements. Nothing is a more powerful inducement than financial incentives and a bonus gives an impact that the ongoing salary doesn't. People don't give a crap about annual reviews unless they think its low enough to get them fired. My sense is performance evaluations should be banished from the corporate world, for the most part.

Usually a waste of time, but that is where managers can be helpful as they are carrying an ongoing assessment of the value of each of their employees at all times. IIRC Peopleware showed that financial bonuses were tremendously effective - at reducing peoples' investment in their work.

Extra money for excellence comes with an implied message that the regular money is just for showing up. You really don't want your employees to feel that way. I researched Valve quite a bit before applying there I did not get in, but one of their senior team members wrote me a nice message. Some interesting bits I found: One former employee hints at some reasons here: This is not to say Valve is a "bad" place to work at, I am sure it beats the hell out of many other job environments, even ignoring the excellent pay.

Typically, applying through their website will not get you a job - they usually hire by actively looking through a pool of candidates that they already know of. They also look for candidates who are good at producing high amounts of customer value - they care more about this than technical ability.

A flatter hierarchy is almost always preferable, but taken to an extreme it seems like inevitable chaos. When I hear people talk about how great they think it would be to work in a flat org, they always seem to think that it means they will exist in a meritocracy free of politics where they can use their own judgement about what to do and how to do it.

I don't see how it could be anything but the exact opposite of that in every respect, and anecdotally that seems to be the case. I suppose I am just going off the completely non-scientific vibe I got when I first heard people describing the organization many years ago. I think how ideal it seems or actually is is in the eye of the beholder: That doesn't surprise me in the least.

Not really surprising considering their bar to hire. But it seems to be more lucrative than a hedge fund. MIKarlsen on July 25, I find the whole "You are a person who spend every waking hour optimizing yourself to become the best YOU you can be"-frame of mind very intimidating.

Maybe it's because I'm not american, but even though I like to work with complex issues, I also like a job with a decent income, and the ability to go home and relax when I'm not working.

And by relax, I don't mean working on side projects, doing volunteer work or earning a second degree in something. You're right - it's very much an American thing. Maybe not exclusive to the US, and it may vary by state or background, but still very common there from my experience with family and friends. If you're a kid, you have to be involved in clubs or teams for everything.

You have to make friends. You have to be good, you have to be popular. You have to get awards. You have to play a couple of sports competitively. On holidays, you have to go to summer camp, shock full of controlled activities. You have to do a lot of "voluntary" work because it will look good in your resume, not because it's helping someone [1]. The idea is that if you're not having Mandatory Fun, you're doing something wrong.

It creates this idealistic culture where everyone is trying to be better all the time, or pretending they are. The reality is that most people live in a constant state of anxiety. For the most part, it's very hard for kids to find what they like, and get better at it by sheer initiative; they never have time to do it.

Instead, they do what they do because they're told to. Little surprise kids have no time for introspection, and that's the way people can actually get better. Science is just starting to understand that Rest is not Idleness [2]. The idea is not new [3].

But our culture, specially the fast-moving tech culture, is not ready for it. I think you're overgeneralizing a bit when you say it's an American thing. Maybe you and your peer group were out in the hard-charging long tail of the distribution and you assume life looked the same everywhere else? As someone who dropped down from honors courses sophomore year of high school to "college prep" and earned a thoroughly mediocre GPA in an easy major at a state school, I'll just say that there are allllll kinds of America out there in addition the one you describe.

I don't have the numbers at my disposal but I'd be willing to bet that even that level of academic attainment puts me ahead of more than half of the population. Just a different perspective on the matter. George Carlin summed this up pretty well - "When does a kid get to sit in a yard with a stick anymore? You know, just sit there with a fucking stick. Do today's kids even know what a stick is? My wife and I were just texting about this.

We try to make sure we carve out time for them to strategically be bored. Forced to explore, use their imaginations, build a fort, stomp on bugs, make shit up. What's the problem? In our home country Brazil , people are a lot more genuinely interested in other people.

We are extreme introverts, not "people people" at all, but we've learned to appreciate our own people a lot more than when we were living back there.

We used to be annoyed at most Brazilians' extroversion and warmth, but now we appreciate it because it is a very genuine sentiment of just wanting to know new people, no matter who they are or where they come from. Ironically this conditioning has the opposite of its intended effect. If I'm at work on reddit all day I'm being productive because I'm at work and getting paid. American here. I don't interpret it that way.

I strongly desire to always be growing as a person yet I find quiet reflection some of my most valuable time. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I agree. The comic book theme carries through from the superhero on the cover to the ads on each page that explain the different company departments. This prioritization of cultural fit is evident throughout the employee handbook with photos of staff, quotes and real testimonials. The document covers lighter topics using things like images, memes, colors and graphs.

For example, the Disqus at a Glance page uses a map to show office locations as well as an easy-to-read graph to illustrate employee growth over time. In addition to the fun layout, the text is written in a light and conversational way making it relatable and much easier to read. The Sterling Culture Code focuses on welcoming new employees and making their first few days, weeks and months with the company as easy as possible.

Created on airmason. The document also communicates how modern and fresh Sterling is by using iMessage chats to answer FAQs. The document portrays the fun company culture with jokes, puns and lighthearted text.

And, they manage to do this without sacrificing humor. The handbook finishes by checking one of the most important legal boxes: The Dollar General Employee Handbook holds a spot on this list for being the most thorough and comprehensive handbook. Employees who are looking for something specific can find it instantly. The most important part of a good employee handbook is that it accurately represents the company to which it belongs.

ADRIENE from Georgia
I do enjoy reading novels accidentally . Browse my other posts. I'm keen on dominoes.