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

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

#281

Post by naasking » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 12:16 PM UTC

bartread wrote: post #238

sgt101 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 syst…

> 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. Definitely some truth in this but one needs to be careful. I think the way to view it might be that being good at X is necessary but not sufficient to being good at Y (assuming Y is a promotion, more responsibility, etc.). If you're not performi…

> For one thing, if you perform poorly at Y you're going to do a lot more damage than at X and the only real evidence anyone has for promoting you to Y is how you've done at X

But X is not indicative of performance at Y, so that's irrelevant. Project management and software development aren't overlapping skill sets, so a poor developer might make a great manager.

> Finally, skills are learned. Python is a learned skill; systems architecture is a learned skill; management is a learned skill.

But like any skill, some people will need a lot more work before mastering it than others. Doubtful that this investment is always worth it.

> The point with high performing employees, and why you promote them, is that they've already demonstrated the engagement and the willingness to learn that they're going to need in order to successfully take the next step.

Or they've just demonstrated tremendous skill at their current job which may or may not reflect "engagement", drive, ambition, whatever you think it's measuring.

Some mathematical studies have actually demonstrated the truth of the Peter principle, and how many hierarchical organizations would actually improve efficiency if a certain subset of promotions were randomly selected.

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

#282

Post by jlawson » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 12:20 PM UTC

jiveturkey wrote: post #191

thwarted wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The role of IT and QA is also to shield the company from all kinds of liability: legal, process, financial, failures, continuity, etc.

only incidentally. whereas it is literally HR’s job.

Come on, be fair. There are tons of administrative tasks that HR takes care of that have nothing to do with liability.

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

#283

Post by notyourday » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 12:27 PM UTC

dunpeal wrote: post #148

notyourday wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Netflix employees, why do you accept this?) Let me take a stab at this: money is good.

>> (Netflix employees, why do you accept this?) > Let me take a stab at this: money is good. Better than everywhere else, including other FAANGs, where you don't have to tolerate such policies?

If you think that FAANG does not have their own special policies you are sadly mistaken. They don't even need to exist on paper. It could simply be tacitly understood.

Had this not been the case every single company would have been doing perp-walks of the managers engaging in such behavior.

As someone in tech, if you are making over $250k/year you should realize that unless you have a contract ( not as in 1099 but as in someone who has an individual, negotiated, untouchable using regular processes ) and you are not in the top 3 tiers of management, then to the management you are a very expensive line item which needs to be minimized. Google and Facebook are starting to tip over -- there will be stories about their culture popping up next year or two.

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

#284

Post by kod » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 12:31 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #177

maxxxxx wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It's my understanding that labor is not the biggest cost at netflix, compared to licensing and production, which is part of why they pay engineers so much.

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

#285

Post by kmonsen » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 12:39 PM UTC

dunpeal wrote: post #216

Avshalom wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah at Google you have autosale as well, whenever rsu vested they get sold and cash comes into my account. Slight hassle at tax time, other then that more or less the same as cash.

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

#286

Post by faizshah » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 12:45 PM UTC

asien wrote: post #275

faizshah wrote: post #140

I feel like tech needs to experiment with worker owned cooperatives and flat management more. I know, I know, the politics in flat structures can be worse. But I think tech should be innovative in management structure and eventually a standard for decision making, perhaps based on quaker principles, and management structure, maybe based on mondragon, can emerge.

>tech needs to experiment with worker owned cooperatives and flat management more Reminds me of Buffer cofounders who just split because they ended up with différents visions for the company. We just need company where C-Exexs are tech guys , not salesman.

I don't know about the Buffer example, but I would say that it also needs to be accompanied by a difference in perspective. Instead of chasing a unicorn valuation or big profit/revenue/marketshare numbers you're trying to build a sustainable business model that provides good quality jobs to people, is a good member of the local community and provides good products to consumers.

Also cooperatives and flat structures don't mean there isn't an executive management or facilitator role, it just means that they are equal to other workers. An executive or facilitator's role would be to help keep the company on track and keep a consistent vision and resolve disputes quickly but there would be a democratic process for hiring and firing rather than a hierarchical one. Take a look at the quaker way of "finding the sense of a meeting" for consensus decision making.

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

#287

Post by alecbenzer » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:29 PM UTC

smueller1234 wrote: post #222

alecbenzer wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you have a slight misunderstanding of how Google promo committees work. Assuming you work there, please try and find a senior engineer or a manager you trust and get them to walk you through how it works.

I used to. What's the misunderstanding? (My current understanding comes from my memory of a manager I trusted explaining it.)

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

#288

Post by alecbenzer » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:36 PM UTC

hnzix wrote: post #226

alecbenzer wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

stack ranking != ranking. Even at El Goog, 50% of the headcount is performing below average.

Huh, interesting, I don't believe that's consistent with Google's use of the term from what I remember, but that does seem to be the meaning I'm finding now.

So yeah, fair enough, I do just mean "ranking" I guess.

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

#289

Post by alecbenzer » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:39 PM UTC

skgoa wrote: post #228

dagw wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 someon…

I really like the way it's commonly done in German industry. You will typically see a union negotiated compensation table with a very wide range of set pay grades. The entire table (i.e. ever employee) gets a raise every year to stay competitive with the labor market. When you enter the company, you get assigned a grade appropriate for the position (plus whatever additional pay you negotiated). As your value to the c…

That's consistent with Google promotions though -- being promoted doesn't mean going up in the org chart.

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

#290

Post by lazerwalker » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #273

lazerwalker wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tricky bit for #4 is if you're, say, a high-performing engineer on a team that's being poorly mis-managed so as to create little business value, getting a disappointing performance review is far more likely to cause you to leave the organization entirely than to switch to a different team. Creating a company culture that engenders that sort of trust and loyalty is not impossible, but still non-trivial.

That seems by design. Good skills poorly applied are t helpful in orgs that need total restructuring, I reckon? Curious for your thoughts.

The parent seemed to be describing a situation where there was a market whereby good talent will inherently flow from bad projects to good projects within an organization. I think my point is they usually don't migrate to a new project within the company, they migrate to another company.

It's true that good IC-level work is often a waste in an organization whose management is too dysfunctional to be focusing on the right things, but an org where all the good people leave is going to find itself in trouble.