At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by alecbenzer » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 6:27 AM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #194

dunpeal wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix apologists in this thread love to use words like "salary" and "cash", then compare against the base salary of other FAANGs. Effectively what they're doing is comparing total comp at Netflix with base salary at other FAANGs, which is very misleading.

I don't know shit about Netflix vs Googles comp but there is a lot to be said for cash: there's no vesting period ; it's dependable, there's no weird dips because an investing firm got spooked; it's liquid, you can spend it at the bar tonight, right now; taxes are straight forward. That said -- I mean this with all sincerity -- it does my commie heart good to see that absolutely no in this thread is buying Netflix's…

Stock at most FAANG is liquid though. Google even has an auto-sell program where you basically never even see the stock.

Agree to all the other points though.

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

#212

Post by hueving » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 7:03 AM UTC

pavon wrote: post #151

walshemj wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, it's not like Olympic athletes are doing anything new and innovative. They are just the best at doing what millions of other people also do. That seems like a decent analogy for Netflix whose basic task isn't groundbreaking, but who has to manage doing it at a scale that rivals anyone else in the industry.

It's not a good analogy because it doesn't require individuals at the top of their field. The only reason Netflix is winning is because they have massive amounts of content and integration into many devices. Both of those are business arrangements and have no requirements for the best engineers in the world. Just competent ones.

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

#213

Post by dunpeal » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 7:03 AM UTC

throwaway359087 wrote: post #198

thechao wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Just cash. Plus another 5% in free options. It’s a ton of money. No bonus, no RSUs or stock, just straight cash salary. And I didn’t write books on the language I used or anything, in my opinion I’m just a regular developer.

Hate to break it to you, but $360k total comp for a senior engineer (the only type Netflix hire) is at best on par with FAANG.

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

#214

Post by sgt101 » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 7:04 AM UTC

alecbenzer wrote: post #208

cryptonector wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I think stack ranking can work well when it's understood that the quality bar doesn't sit at a fixed place in the stack. Google promo committees afaik stack rank a batch of employees and then decide where in the stack to promote, and (in theory) it can be anywhere from the whole stack gets promoted to no one gets promoted. Whether you explicitly stack rank or not, if you give some people promotions and not others, yo…

1. Don't promote based on ranking in current role. The new roles that you are promoting into aren't the current role. Being a good X doesn't mean that you will be a good Y.

2. Organise your company around rewarding excellent work. Ranking systems reward being good at the ranking system. They rapidly become the whole focus of the organisation, I have seen >10% of an organisations time burned on simply running the system, the amount of time manipulating it was unmeasured but by observation probably greater than that.

3. What is the objective : reward great people, remove terrible ones. The latter must be done at any time, it must be fast, it must be transparent. If your system doesn't do that then it's a bad system. Stack ranking and all ranking/global performance management systems fail to do any of these. They introduce relative performance as the bar, they introduce admin. The former is potentially done by a stack ranking system, but if you are a star in such a system then seek not to work with other stars or you will descend the stack - this is bad.

4. Pay rises (not promotions) follow business performance - if the team's unit is winning the money for the team will be there. But the team might be poor compared to another team that is in a weak unit. This is natural for businesses and what should happen is that the talent from the good team should migrate to the winning unit. Businesses need to manage this with an eye to the future (building business) but stack rankings don't help this.

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

#215

Post by dunpeal » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 7:06 AM UTC

alecbenzer wrote: post #210

im_down_w_otp wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know about them directly, and also about the other companies directly as well. :shrug: You need better data.

You're claiming total comp at non-Netflix FAANG for senior-principal is $175k-$250k? Would love to see any specific numbers you have but that just sounds straight up wrong. IME $200k-$250k is around what L4s at Google make in total comp. Are you sure this isn't a salary vs. equity thing?

There are multiple Netflix employees in this thread, all citing the same $360k total comp figure.

I'm guessing GP is someone who heard base salary data for Netflix vs other FAANGs, and doesn't realize how much of total comp at a non-Netflix FAANG would come from bonus and RSUs.

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

#216

Post by dunpeal » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 7:09 AM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #194

dunpeal wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix apologists in this thread love to use words like "salary" and "cash", then compare against the base salary of other FAANGs. Effectively what they're doing is comparing total comp at Netflix with base salary at other FAANGs, which is very misleading.

I don't know shit about Netflix vs Googles comp but there is a lot to be said for cash: there's no vesting period ; it's dependable, there's no weird dips because an investing firm got spooked; it's liquid, you can spend it at the bar tonight, right now; taxes are straight forward. That said -- I mean this with all sincerity -- it does my commie heart good to see that absolutely no in this thread is buying Netflix's…

> there's no vesting period ; it's dependable, there's no weird dips because an investing firm got spooked; it's liquid, you can spend it at the bar tonight, right now; taxes are straight forward.

For the most part, these are all benefits of RSUs at a company like Facebook or Google.

They're totally liquid. They "vest", but in short order.

This isn't startup equity. It's very much real money.

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

#217

Post by jaster » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 7:12 AM UTC

Hasknewbie wrote: post #173

k_sh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry I am not American, but in my (European) culture there are some taboo words that are definitely not okay. The equivalent of the American "N-word" being one of those.

This is considered to be normal, and people that publicly use this kind of words are generally viewed with contempt. And it could be a reason to get fired from your job.

I believe this to be common across Western European countries (even with the current surge of far-right parties).

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

#218

Post by hueving » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 7:13 AM UTC

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

>it's meant to be used exclusively by the targeted group

Impressive use of the passive voice to pretend that there is some central authority deciding how words are meant to be used. People don't agree on how words are meant to be used and there is no reason to give preference to one over the other. Either ban it or not, don't have a skin color test to determine if someone should be fires or patted on the back after they drop a racial slur on the phone.

That Wikipedia article even mentions that people in the in group are often offended by the use of the word.

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

#219

Post by dagw » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 7:18 AM UTC

alecbenzer wrote: post #208

cryptonector wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I think stack ranking can work well when it's understood that the quality bar doesn't sit at a fixed place in the stack. Google promo committees afaik stack rank a batch of employees and then decide where in the stack to promote, and (in theory) it can be anywhere from the whole stack gets promoted to no one gets promoted. Whether you explicitly stack rank or not, if you give some people promotions and not others, yo…

If you give some people promotions and not others, you're ranking people.

In an ideal world 'promotions' should be a) a completely separate discussion from pay rises (as in a promotion is not automatically connected with getting a pay rise and ideally you should have to prove yourself in your new position before you even get to discuss pay) and b) not based on how good you are at your current job, but how good someone thinks you might be at the job you're promoted into.

I've seen several cases where the best engineers get promoted into positions of greater responsibility simply because they're the best engineers and completely floundering in the new role because it's largely unrelated to what they're actually good at. On the same note I've also seen fairly mediocre engineers get promoted and excelling in their new role since the new role fit them a lot better.

If you're great software engineer you should be able to spend 20 years at a company as software engineer with the job title software engineer and still get regular pay rises and end up earning the same or more as the senior managers.

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

#220

Post by agret » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 7:20 AM UTC

flashgordon wrote: post #178

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.

> Can share (without giving away names) what strategies you used to suss this out?

> 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).

He knew people that worked there already.