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

291–300 of 335 posts

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

#291

Post by strangerlands »

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #149
lz400 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looks very high for senior devs and very low for directors/VPs.

Low for directors, yes. But the senior engineer figures are in line with what I have heard. The initial offer is never that high though.

The initial offers are often higher than 400 for Senior Software Eng, Senior Data Scientists, Senior Machine Learning Research Scientists and Engineers. 600 is actually pretty common for experienced people. On paper, there are no Juniors (there are associates in Marketing and Business and I think other teams). They pay top of the market according to their Excel sheets.

Netflix does not have "tech lead" or "Principal" roles for the Software or Science teams. It is Senior, then you have Managers (who can be paid less than Seniors), Directors (no senior Directors), VP (no Senior VPs), and C-suite (with comp that is publicly available).

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

#292

Post by dunpeal »

trhway wrote: post #229
im_down_w_otp wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The pay for Senior & Principal level positions at Netflix are $350k-$500k+ base compensation. true according to acquaintances from there. Pure cash. >The same shape of thing at Apple, Facebook, etc. would be about half that in many cases. the base at FAANG is about half of NFLX. The RSUs take the total higher than NFLX. Know cases where $100K-$200K higher total comp offer from FAANG (i.e. mostly RSU) wouldn't move t…

> Know cases where $100K-$200K higher total comp offer from FAANG (i.e. mostly RSU) wouldn't move the NFLX employee - $500K cash change your view of the world :)

That's really silly, but demonstrates Netflix's pay strategy. They don't pay better than other FAANGs - the comments in this thread indicate they pay less than the top FAANGs. But then they use the fact that it's "all cash" to appeal to folks who are misguided about RSUs.

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

#293

Post by amyjess »

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,…

Honestly, that sounds utterly horrifying.

I'd much rather work at a company that practices Japanese-style lifetime employment.

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

#294

Post by type_enthusiast »

svat wrote: post #183
type_enthusiast wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, "culture of fear" hasn't been my experience at all, and as far as I know it isn't the experience of the people I work with. I can't speak for other teams/orgs (I work in the ML org) but in the years I've been here I could count on one hand the number of folks (at least among those I knew) who were let go. I don't worry or think about my job security; I think about building better software (and from what I can t…

A few months ago, a good engineer who had left Netflix told someone I know that the reason was the work culture: specifically, she mentioned that there were team meetings where everyone was encouraged to say what they didn't like about others, in a public setting. More recently, this person I know brought it up when interviewing at Netflix (not wanting to work in such a culture), and was reassured by the hiring manag…

Both the manager and the friend-of-friend could be correct – it depends on the team. Some teams encourage (but don't require) a group feedback session where everything is out in the open; others encourage private feedback.

But either way, the goal is the same – not to target you or make you feel inadequate, but for you to discover things that you might not have realized were negatively impacting the team.

Group feedback meetings do exist, but I can't imagine that anyone would be penalized (even in thought) for choosing not to participate.

The way I see it, people will talk about their coworkers at any workplace. At most places it's behind their back; here we have respect enough for one another to give each other constructive feedback directly instead of gossiping. It makes a lot of sense to me, but I guess not everybody feels that way. If your manager doesn't make it clear that group feedback is optional, that would be a great piece of feedback for your manager!

So I think "criticized in public as a matter of course" is a mischaracterization. IME managers go to great lengths to ensure that people are treated respectfully and not made to feel pressured to participate in things they aren't comfortable with. And "fired one day unexpectedly" is certainly not the norm – I'm not aware of anyone who was let go without having been told weeks or months in advance about issues they needed to address. That's not to say it couldn't happen, because it could happen at any workplace. But it's not the norm.

Edit: Should also mention that the feedback cycle also includes positive feedback. It's not just a gripe fest. You identify things that your colleague is doing well/things you appreciate, and also things that they could improve.

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

#295

Post by dunpeal »

notyourday wrote: post #283
dunpeal wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> (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 a…

> to the management you are a very expensive line item which needs to be minimized.

"Expensive" is relative, though. The top places are growing and in constant need of great new employees. Firing an engineer making $250k just to hire a replacement making the same amount is actually highly expensive and wasteful - firing and recruiting can easily cost as much an annual salary.

Recruiting is really expensive.

> Google and Facebook are starting to tip over -- there will be stories about their culture popping up next year or two.

What do you mean by that?

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

#296

Post by brian_cunnie »

crazygringo wrote: post #14

> Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees for performance reasons, not because managers don’t like them From what I've seen, managers give poor performance reviews or "metrics" when they don't like people. This feels like a distinction without a difference.

Let's not overlook someone's effectiveness as an influence on likability.

I hired a grumpy, cynical systems administrator who often spoke his mind at inopportune times, but I'll admit he was head and shoulders above every other candidate in terms of technical ability. And he was diligent.

I liked him. I liked him in spite of his shortcomings.

In general I tend to make large allowances for people of strong technical ability. It's not a conscious thing -- they do good work, and they're effective. Sure, they may be brusque: yesterday one said to me, "No, you're wrong, that's not who it works." He couldn't be bothered to sugarcoat what he was saying. But I like him -- he's good.

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

#297

Post by type_enthusiast »

smt88 wrote: post #167
type_enthusiast wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, "culture of fear" hasn't been my experience at all, and as far as I know it isn't the experience of the people I work with. I can't speak for other teams/orgs (I work in the ML org) but in the years I've been here I could count on one hand the number of folks (at least among those I knew) who were let go. I don't worry or think about my job security; I think about building better software (and from what I can t…

Even if the scary culture deck isn't followed, a scary culture deck is an indicator of a bad culture...

I wouldn't say the culture deck isn't followed. Just that it doesn't say what people in this thread seem to think it says. Have you looked at it? I wouldn't call it "scary". There's one section that's a little bit intimidating for a humble person who doesn't think of him/herself as a "rock star". I think that can cause impostor syndrome in many new hires. But it passes (at least for me), and the ability to trust any given colleague to do great work (and for them to trust you to do the same) is extraordinarily refreshing.

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

#298

Post by scurvy »

jedberg wrote: post #209
scurvy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Open connect didn't start until years after the move to AWS happened. All that bandwidth was served out of Akamai at the time.

And lots of people stayed through working on Open Connect while still using Akamai. It didn't happen overnight.

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

#299

Post by notyourday »

dunpeal wrote: post #295
notyourday wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> to the management you are a very expensive line item which needs to be minimized. "Expensive" is relative, though. The top places are growing and in constant need of great new employees. Firing an engineer making $250k just to hire a replacement making the same amount is actually highly expensive and wasteful - firing and recruiting can easily cost as much an annual salary. Recruiting is really expensive. > Google…

Stories about Uber's toxicity started popping up when it became unclear that all of those working for it would become multi-millionaires next two years.

Stories of Zenefits ickiness started popping up when it became unclear that those working for it would become multi-millionaries in next few years.

Stories of Netflix culture toxicity started popping up when it became no longer clear that Netflix will continue to eat the world of streaming -- hence continuing to provide massive $$ to those working for it.

People would take more abuse for a higher chance to make a boatload of money. The smaller the boatload or the less are the chances of making it, the less employees are willing to take.

If you are to look at Google and Facebook stories over last 6-12 months you would see more and more questions about how far those two companies can grow. As the growth trajectory slows down more and more stories about the internal ugliness show up because fewer people are willing to take it.

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

#300

Post by amyjess »

rednerrus wrote: post #28

After working in organizations where terrible performance is tolerated, this seems like a breath of fresh air. We've all worked with some asshole/fuck-off who we wish someone would fire. It starts to eat away at morale. I'd rather take my chances an not have to work with the problem children.

...until you find out that you are the terrible performer. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is real. You may very well be that low performer everyone else wishes someone would fire, and you wouldn't even know.

I'd take having to tolerate a useless chucklefuck on my team over living with a Sword of Damocles constantly hanging over my head.

Actually, what I really want is Japanese-style lifetime employment...

Post reply on HN