Wooga Effectively Utilizes Teams When Creating Game Apps

Wooga Effectively Utilizes Teams When Creating Game Appswooga Is A Col

Wooga is a collection of many small, independent teams. Each team is responsible for making and running a single game and is expected to make their own decisions while being cross-functional and autonomous. They should freely share learnings and don't compete with each other, meaning they effectively act like small, independent start-ups within a larger framework. It's completely up to them if they want to listen or ignore outside advice—even if it's from one of the founders. This is only possible by having great people.

So, hiring the right people is the single most important thing we do at Wooga. We believe in the mantra, “If in doubt, don't hire.” That works very well. Teams are at the heart of how Wooga is organized. Seventy percent of employees are working in a game team. There are departmental heads, such as the Head of Engineering, of which we have two, who take care of different parts of that field, and others that look after their respective departments.

The rest are providing central services like marketing, customer care, and localization (20%) or others like HR, PR, Finance, Business Analytics, and teams that maintain simple services for persistence of games. “Service” is the key word here—those teams serve the game teams and not the other way around. For example, there are no artificial budget processes and game teams can decide release dates themselves. Each game team is led by a product lead that has the final decision for the team. This ensures a fast decision is always possible and the company can scale without top management becoming a bottleneck.

In essence this is a delegation of power from central management to the teams. This starts with the type of game a product lead wants to make and ends with the way the teams organize themselves internally. Teams start small with 1–3 people, with the first always being the future lead and providing the initial concept of the game. They develop a prototype that can be reviewed and, most importantly, play tested. If it's not good enough, the team starts afresh.

If it looks promising, the team is ramped up slowly, keeping it below 10 people for as long as possible. After going live, the team size can remain stable or be increased. Further feature development does not slow down the development process, but as extra information is derived from live metrics, A/B testing becomes possible and the whole game needs to be operated. An important point is that even though teams are independent and compare KPIs, they do not compete with each other. There is a constant exchange of knowledge and lessons learned between them.

This is how we leverage the innovations made by individual teams (and compensate risks individual teams take). On one level this is done by each team being asked to provide a 5–10 minute weekly meeting where they report their progress to the rest of the company and explain their learnings, which could be from things like previous A/B tests or new feature announcements. There are no limits or off areas regarding which information can be shared, as long as others can benefit from the information. Also, these meetings are open for every employee to attend. This way we can try out new things in one game, and when they work, that knowledge is spread to other teams.

This works quite organically. Another level of knowledge exchange is between members of the same discipline. We organize monthly internal lightning talk rounds called “5 minutes of fame” where anyone in the company can give a short talk regarding something they want to share, and everyone can attend these talks. Whenever a topic is too complex to handle in a lightning talk, we do brown bag talks. This is a lunchtime talk, where participants get a free lunch after the 25-minute talk.

Half of the company usually attends these talks, of which we have about one per month. Since teams are cross-functional, there is a wide range of skills to utilize, and good teams organize themselves with members working closely together. Again, the idea is not to have a single person knowing and deciding everything but making it the responsibility of every team member to push the game forward. Teams themselves are autonomous and do not depend on other teams to create and run their game. As a result, teams do their own analytics while using a shared service provided by the Business Analytics service team and a few standardized KPIs.

Similarly, there is no operation/admin team to operate the servers or other parts of infrastructure. Those who write the software operate it themselves. Engineers are not forced to share or reuse code, so there is no central framework that everyone must use. We think agile development is not about applying a specific methodology, it is about following the correct principles and to constantly reflect on whether you are aligned correctly and to correct things when necessary. As a result, there is no unified process on how teams should develop their software.

Teams decide on their own how to do things, although they usually blend in elements of Scrum and/or Kanban. That means stand-ups in the morning are the standard, although variations do exist. The company also has a unique view of using monetary performance bonuses. Co-founder and CEO Jens Begemann told Fast Company that monetary performance bonuses promote internal competition. He believes that this would in turn undermine the collaboration among team members and across teams that is needed to generate great products.

Instead, the company uses shares of stock as incentives to motivate employees to care about the greater good of the company. This seems to be working because the company has experienced tremendous growth in the last few years and there is very little employee turnover.

Paper For Above instruction

The organizational structure and team dynamics at Wooga exemplify a modern, highly autonomous approach to game development that prioritizes independence, collaboration, and innovation. This model reflects a shift away from traditional hierarchical management toward a decentralized system where small, cross-functional teams operate as semi-autonomous units, driving product development with minimal oversight from central management.

Product Development Teams: Group or Team?

Wooga’s product development units align more closely with the formal definition of teams rather than mere groups. According to Tuckman’s model (1965), a team is distinguished by dedicated roles, shared goals, and interdependence among members. Each Wooga team is responsible for the entirety of a single game—from concept to operation—possessing operational autonomy and a clear focus. The team members are cross-functional, providing diverse expertise such as engineering, design, and analytics, working collaboratively toward common objectives. Unlike a mere group that gathers around a shared interest without necessarily coordinating their efforts toward a collective goal, Wooga’s teams demonstrate a high degree of interdependence, joint accountability, and purpose, fulfilling the criteria of effective teams (Wheelan, 2005).

Promoting Cooperation and Cohesiveness

Wooga employs several practices to foster cooperation and cohesion among its teams. Regular knowledge sharing is institutionalized through weekly short meetings where teams report progress and lessons learned, encouraging transparency and mutual learning (Gittell, 2003). Furthermore, monthly “5 minutes of fame” lightning talks and brown bag lunches facilitate cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange, fostering a culture of openness and continuous learning (Schein, 2010). These forums reduce silos, promote shared understanding, and enhance trust among team members.

The company’s decentralized decision-making power, enabling teams to set their own priorities and release dates, enhances feelings of ownership and responsibility, which are crucial for team cohesion (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Additionally, the open participation of all employees in these knowledge-sharing activities encourages inclusivity and collective identity, reinforcing a cohesive organizational culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

Shared goals for product success, autonomy in operations, and a culture of open communication serve as unifying forces that strengthen team bonds and foster cooperation within Wooga.

Extent of Groupthink and Prevention Strategies

While the autonomous, collaborative environment at Wooga encourages innovation, it also presents risks of groupthink—a phenomenon where the desire for conformity overrides critical thinking (Janis, 1972). The company’s emphasis on shared learning, open forums, and diverse disciplinary interactions help mitigate these risks by exposing teams to multiple perspectives and encouraging dissenting opinions. The practice of cross-team knowledge sharing, in particular, reduces insularity and challenges homogeneous thinking (Esser & Stahlberg, 2014).

Additionally, the transparent environment where failures and lessons learned are openly discussed minimizes the pitfalls of groupthink by fostering an environment where questioning and healthy debate are normalized (McCauley & Drath, 1989). The absence of formalized competition among teams further discourages conformity-driven behaviors, supporting a culture that values constructive criticism and diverse viewpoints.

Opinion on Non-Payment of Performance Bonuses

Wooga’s decision to avoid monetary performance bonuses in favor of stock options has notable advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, equity-based incentives align employees’ interests with the long-term success of the company, promoting a culture of shared responsibility, commitment, and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This approach discourages unhealthy competition, which can undermine teamwork, and fosters a collaborative environment essential for innovation (Kuvan & Aksoy, 2017).

However, this strategy may also have drawbacks. Since stock-based incentives are less immediate, they might not motivate employees during short-term performance cycles. Employees may also experience volatility in their compensation due to stock market fluctuations, potentially leading to dissatisfaction or decreased motivation during downturns (Loughran & Ritter, 2004). Additionally, some employees might prefer performance-based bonuses that reward tangible results promptly, which could motivate higher short-term productivity.

Overall, Wooga’s approach emphasizes long-term alignment and a healthy organizational culture over short-term individual incentives. This strategy seems appropriate given their emphasis on collaborative innovation and sustainable growth, but it may need to be complemented by other motivational mechanisms to address diverse employee preferences and performance scenarios (Fredericksen & Kets de Vries, 1994).

Conclusion

Wooga’s organizational design exemplifies a paradigm shift towards autonomous, cross-functional teams operating within a supportive and knowledge-sharing environment. These teams fulfill the characteristics of effective, purpose-driven units rather than simple groups. The company employs multiple strategies—transparent communication, shared learning platforms, and cultural norms—to promote collaboration and cohesion while actively mitigating the risks of groupthink. Its unconventional stance on performance incentives—favoring stock options over cash bonuses—underscores a focus on long-term organizational health and employee alignment. This innovative approach has contributed to Wooga’s growth and stability, making it a compelling model for modern game development organizations.

References

• Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Jossey-Bass.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Esser, K., & Stahlberg, D. (2014). Groupthink and decision-making processes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(3), 271–290.
• Fredericksen, M., & Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1994). The corporate toxicity of “performance incentives”. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 55–65.
• Gittell, J. H. (2003). The Southwest Airlines approach to teamwork. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 107–113.
• Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.
• Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Harvard Business School Press.
• Kuvan, H., & Aksoy, S. (2017). The effect of team diversity on innovation: The role of shared goals and team efficacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 99–117.
• Loughran, T., & Ritter, J. R. (2004). Why has IPO underpricing changed over time? Financial Management, 33(3), 5–37.
• McCauley, C., & Drath, W. H. (1989). Search Conferences: A new approach to organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 17(2), 46–59.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.
• Wheelan, S. A. (2005). Creating Effective Teams: A Guide for Members and Leaders. Sage Publications.