If Valve's organization is simply to let employees fight it out thunderdome style to see who controls projects, culture, and direction, the organization should be grown by spinning off completely new and independent businesses, not by hiring people. Then the economics of free enterprise provides a true risk/reward system. With salaried employees rewards are capped. Employees will only stick around until they discover that the real economy pays much better for hard work and good ideas and that the risks are basically the same: no income.
The "we have no structure" culture is disingenuous. I don't buy the idea that most of the employees at valve don't want to dominate all the projects and their coworkers. It is exactly the same anywhere. You can't simply say 'we don't have managers' as obviously only certain people are going to have power of budget and final hiring decision. Only certain people can sign documents. Only when employees can expense anything they want and hire anyone they feel should be hired would a "no managers" description be appropriate. You might say that this would never work, but it does work if each employee is given assistance or investment to spin off a new organization at any time, hire anyone, and spend money.
Now, this might surprise you, but working on cool projects can be its own reward. Your utility metric is flawed.
"I don't buy the idea that most of the employees at valve don't want to dominate all the projects and their coworkers. It is exactly the same anywhere."
Did you perchance get your worldview from anime? Really? This might also surprise you, but a lot of well-functioning folks don't care about petty politics as much as doing cool stuff.
"working on cool projects can be its own reward. Your utility metric is flawed."
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. My opinion is people that say they don't care about monetary rewards are bullshitters. After all, if you have enough money you can work on any project you want.
"a lot of well-functioning folks don't care about petty politics as much as doing cool stuff."
A lot of people SAY all they care about is doing cool stuff. People employed at a company to earn money are not these people (but they see if people will buy it anyways). Denying that you're playing politics is politics 101.
I don't buy the idea that most of the employees at valve don't want to dominate all the projects and their coworkers.
I'm pretty sure I don't want to dominate my coworkers, so I find it easy to believe there are others who don't want that either. In fact, a coworker who wanted to dominate me would be a highly unpleasant coworker.
"Co-" means "together". There are other forms of human relationship besides master/slave.
If the culture at Valve is one where everyone has self-determination, anyone trying to "dominate" others would quickly start to be seen as a dick, would stop being able to find collaborators, would stop being able to get much done, and would eventually be weeded out.
Anecdotally, I dislike telling people under me what to do, let alone "dominating" them. I much prefer working with people who are self-directed individual contributors. I would not want to hire anyone that I thought matched your description, and if I found out that they did, I would fire them when I saw any clear evidence of it.
Whatever is offered is simply designed to keep people from leaving, nothing more. Any of those in no way competes with being a major owner of a valuable firm. Most firms do things such as grant options that are way out of the money, essentially worthless pieces of paper, and that take half a decade to vest. Even if a firm grants equity, which is rare, it is based on pumped valuations not based on free cash flow and which also takes half a decade to vest. Even then, it is likely to be less than 0.1% of the company. Bonuses, as well, are small in comparison to the value created by employee's work or even the employee's salary.
The "we have no structure" culture is disingenuous. I don't buy the idea that most of the employees at valve don't want to dominate all the projects and their coworkers. It is exactly the same anywhere. You can't simply say 'we don't have managers' as obviously only certain people are going to have power of budget and final hiring decision. Only certain people can sign documents. Only when employees can expense anything they want and hire anyone they feel should be hired would a "no managers" description be appropriate. You might say that this would never work, but it does work if each employee is given assistance or investment to spin off a new organization at any time, hire anyone, and spend money.