I don't think that the author was suggesting that the employees are expected to value the company's interest over their own personal lives. At least I hope not.

Now, it may be a rare trait. I have no idea really whether it is or not. I've certainly known many who operate in the reverse order, but it is what I was taught by my parents growing up, and has served me well during various careers.

None of this means I want to work for Facebook, but they may actually be doing this there. I have read complaints by former employees that it is a little cult-like to work there, but again, those are a few out of thousands.

Except, for example, the ACM Software Engineer's code of ethics where this is the explicitly stated order.

[1] http://www.acm.org/about/se-code

You think Facebook engineers can seriously go to work every day and abide by that?

In fact the code says it's all in service of the public, if there is any sense of priorities to derive, the employer is not on top. And besides, "The Code is not a simple ethical algorithm that generates ethical decisions."

Which is another way to say that people who comes up with these things aren't in their right minds.

Software engineers shall eat learning comrades.

CLIENT AND EMPLOYER is #2 in the list, and SELF is #8. COLLEAGUES is #7.

I mean, if you are are part of a team and identify something that goes against you and the team but in favor of the conpany, your team's goal should be revised and realigned, and you should get credit for that. In the end pointing out the problem and eventually offering a solution shouldn't go against your own professional interests (your "self" shouldn't get the short end of the stick for a correct behavior)

One extreme: If I make more money than I need, I will not ask to be paid less.

Other end: I will work on whatever is most important for the team/product/company. Not what I find most fun.

(Although it's "employees, customers, management, shareholders").

EDIT: Disclaimer: have friends who work at costco, have a membership, own some stock, etc.

I've looked into cooperative business organisations in the past. From my recollections, these typically fall into a few classifications:

1. Political parties. Often themselves strongly aligned with cooperative or anarchist principles.

2. Labour unions. In some cases.

3. A few creatives collaborations, but with pretty loose integration. Artists, performers, or writers organisations.

4. Food-based businesses, typically smaller tea or coffee houses, or co-op food stores.

5. Mondragon Corporation. Pretty much an only-one-in-class, of an industrial cooperative. Also almost everyone's default example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

6. Producer co-ops. Often in agriculture, though others exist. Blue Diamond Almonds, and, previously, both Visa and MasterCard (the latter have both since reorganised as for-profit joint-stock companies).

I don't know of any business organisations that perform software or consulting services on a cooperative basis, though of course, the entire Free Software movement is a non-business organisation of such work.

Of course, I DDG on posting and immediately find: http://www.software.coop/info/

Though I'd argue that the fact I'd never heard of this group and their size somewhat emphasises my point.

I'm looking for tech examples.

Project/work priorities? Should be company first, then team, then self. I think that goes without saying, and I think thats what they're trying to get across. Going for self glory in projects isn't good for a company. Going to team glory isn't good for a company, but its better than self glory.

Financial priorities? Everyone has to take care of themselves in that sense. Every individual has to take care of the bottom of their hierarchy of needs. This might be what you're comparing here. At the same time, past a certain point self needs are fulfilled financially - holding a project hostage for a raise for example wouldn't be great.

Social priorities? Self probably comes first there as well - but its not that great a scale since self improvement from working around good people is a benefit to the company as well. But if done in such a way that you stand on the bodies of your vanquished foes you've created a win/lose situation where it could be a win/win. Don't be like oracle, basically.

you and FB missed the most important - going for the glory of your boss. It is good for the both - for the company (as the company did make sure that the glory of the boss is aligned with the glory of the company) as well as for the team (as the company did make sure that glory of the boss is aligned with the glory of the team). And it is obviously also good for yourself as bosses value the ones who bring them glory.

Some of you claim the question is about putting your personal glory above the success of the team. If so the author states it horribly

Kinda are, tho'. Stress, burnout, depression, carpel tunnel, strain on relationships, poor diet and lack of exercise, sleep deprivation - these are all things that many companies demand of their employees.

I already have to make decisions and produce value. If a company is paying me, I will choose to be more tolerant of making such decisions as part of that company's processes and with consideration to that company's needs. However, payment does not obligate me to serve those things. At least, not morally.

Well, that wasn't what GP said (specifically your "only"). What was stated was that company > team > self is not a natural ordering. And I agree.

In particular, people will generally rank team > company. This is well-known to anyone who's studied small unit leadership, and has been well-known since von Clausewitz, perhaps even since antiquity.

However, having some degree of overall faith in the leadership of the company, or at least in the purpose of the company (what's typically referred to in the military literature as Esprit de Corps) is a necessary precondition for small unit cohesion.

TL;DR: the relationship between self, unit and company is much too complex for a linear ranking of their priorities to be useful in anything but vacuous statements.

Nicely put.

Just walk out when you get questions like this.