Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 335 posts

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#171

Post by im_down_w_otp »

dunpeal wrote: post #55
strangerlands wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Netflix employees, why do you accept this? Money, of course. Plus, people working in tech and making very good money are not known for "spine-straightness".

> Money, of course. If they are such solid performers, they can get jobs in other FAANGs who pay just as well. Netflix pays well, but does it pay so much better that I should put up with this BS? I doubt. In fact, by keeping up this abusive charade, Netflix is guaranteeing that many of the best candidates will never apply. So my guess would be that their employees aren't the best, but perhaps the best candidates will…

This is absolutely untrue.

The pay for Senior & Principal level positions at Netflix are $350k-$500k+ base compensation. The same shape of thing at Apple, Facebook, etc. would be about half that in many cases.

Netflix goes out of its way to pay top-of-market and often by a significant margin.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#172

Post by voltagex_ »

walshemj wrote: post #90
booleandilemma wrote: post #64

“Be­ing part of Net­flix is like be­ing part of an Olympic team,” the com­pany said in a writ­ten statement Oh please. Get over yourselves.

Netflix is a fracking online video store for F^%k's sake - not Bell labs

Netflix don't need anyone defending them but they've done some really interesting research into delivering video at very low bitrates.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#173

Post by Hasknewbie »

k_sh wrote: post #85
booleandilemma wrote: post #34

Mr. Hast­ings had re­cently fired his chief com­mu­ni­ca­tions of­fi­cer for say­ing the “N-word” in full form. The ex­ec­u­tive, who is white... The race of the speaker shouldn’t matter. Either make the word forbidden (a silly concept to begin with) or don’t.

It's a reclaimed slur - it's meant to be used exclusively by the targeted group. Not respecting that requires you to ignore the painful cultural background of the term. > In sociology and cultural studies, reappropriation (or reclamation) is the cultural process by which a group reclaims terms [...] previously used in a way disparaging of that group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation

I assume the GP, like me, is not American: in most cultures the very notion of made-up taboo words (i.e. words that are forbidden regardless of what context/sentence they're used in) is considered a decadent aberration. Whether you call it "taboo word" or "reclaimed slur" makes no difference.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#174

Post by scurvy »

jedberg wrote: post #7

> Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees for performance reasons, not because managers don’t like them That's not true at all. The company fires people all the time because their skills just aren't necessary. I mean I guess technically it's a layoff, but a layoff and getting fired are functionally the same at Netflix as they both come with the same severance. When we moved to AWS,…

I find it hard to believe that you "let go" of people with physical infrastructure expertise after you "moved to AWS." Netflix has a massive physical hardware project with Open Connect and runs one of the largest bandwidth networks in the world. The fact that everything suddenly collapsed under one individual probably had something to do with it. I don't mind said individual, but a lot of people don't like him. He's been known to do and say some pretty petty things.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#175

Post by marssaxman »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #101
marssaxman wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"FAANG" seems like a bizarrely arbitrary grouping overall, with Netflix as a clear outlier; I understand that it might make superficial sense to an investment banker, but in terms of the businesses they are engaged in and the type of work their employees are doing, Netflix should be dropped from the list and replaced with Microsoft.

I think this was "the group of big tech companies with increasing fortunes," which at the time the acronym was coined did not include Microsoft. Anyway this is a popular thing to gripe about on HN recently, but the acronym seems fine to me.

Is Netflix really a tech company?

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#176

Post by macintux »

ryall wrote: post #76
stevenjohns wrote: post #6

> Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees for performance reasons, not because managers don’t like them Oh how I wish I could have had that. I've had an experience in the past where I was dismissed because my manager decided he just didn't like me anymore. Although I was the best performing, most senior developer on the team and was doing all the hiring and mentoring of others, it d…

You'd think that in any decent company a manager would be held accountable for firings. "They weren't performing, why not? What did you do to assist them? Show us the minutes from your meetings where they outlined why they couldn't meet performance goals and you provided ways to help them" A manager's role is to support their team, any failure to do so should be looked at very carefully as to why they are under-perfo…

I don’t think most startups feel they have time to mentor.

I think most big companies would find that much firing accountability at the all levels uncomfortable.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#177

Post by cryptonector »

maxxxxx wrote: post #113
ChuckMcM wrote: post #111

Netflix has tried to recruit me a couple of times, I interviewed on site both times (after having the recruiter send me the slide deck that they use to explain their culture so it wouldn't be a surprise). For one of the sessions I had the extraordinary opportunity to talk to the manager for the role, their manager, and two people who had previously been in the role (Netflix wasn't aware that I knew those people). Wha…

That's what you get when you have fixed quotas for firing people, e.g. bottom 10%. After a few rounds you have some very good people left and either you fire good people that are hard to replace or you hire people to fire them. I don't understand how the top guys don't see that dynamic.

Stack ranking is a very bad idea. At MSFT, as I understand it, it led to some terrible dynamics, such as people not helping each other within teams, nor across teams, and no one wanting to stick their necks out.

Labor is the biggest cost at tech companies, so one can understand desperate attempts at getting a handle on that cost. As long as you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#178

Post by flashgordon »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #111

Netflix has tried to recruit me a couple of times, I interviewed on site both times (after having the recruiter send me the slide deck that they use to explain their culture so it wouldn't be a surprise). For one of the sessions I had the extraordinary opportunity to talk to the manager for the role, their manager, and two people who had previously been in the role (Netflix wasn't aware that I knew those people). Wha…

Can share (without giving away names) what strategies you used to suss this out? One thing I am very terrible at is actually sussing out unhealthy behaviour and cultures in an interview setting and it would be great to see how you guage both the answers and the cues.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#179

Post by thechao »

throwaway359087 wrote: post #51
dunpeal wrote: post #37

> Many employees say they see the keeper test as a guise for ordinary workplace politics while some managers say they feel pressure to fire people or risk looking soft. Postmortem emails and meetings explaining why people got fired are viewed by some employees as awkward and theatrical when the audiences can be dozens or even hundreds of people. So every employee gets to be badmouthed in front of as many as hundreds…

Because Netflix pays 360k a year plus benefits. It’s a shit place to work if you don’t fit the exact culture though, which is pretty brash and confrontational

Is that total cash compensation (salary + stock + bonuses, or whatever), or just salary? I can never tell with these sorts of statements.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#180

Post by dunpeal »

jhall1468 wrote: post #154
dunpeal wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I don't think after you get KIA in the armed forces, they hold a special funeral where your commanding officer tells your entire battalion that you were a coward and a poor soldier so justifiably you got shot.

Pretty sure you don't die when you get fired from Netflix. You go work for a different FANG for a lower base salary. Little bit much with that analogy.

I didn't choose this analogy, GP did. That said, I do think it conveys - somewhat hyperbolically - the premise that your own managers and teammates are encouraged - as a matter of policy - to disparage you and your performance once you are forced out of the outfit.
Post reply on HN