At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

Post by true_tuna » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 8:38 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...

Post by woolvalley » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 8:41 PM UTC

brian_cunnie wrote: post #296

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 a…

Post by darkerside » Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 12:30 AM UTC

dunpeal wrote: post #91

halbritt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further, to that point, any manager that dislikes a report is likely going to have a very difficult time getting quality work out of that report regardless of how talented they may be. Ergo, the report's performance may be suffering, but entirely because they're being poorly managed.

Very true. A pattern I've seen when relationship between employee and superior goes south is similar to disfavored step-child: They get less praise for doing well, and more blame for any mistake. This tends to escalate over time, and very often the employee's performance will degrade (since they won't get any credit anyway) which escalates the situation. Often they "patch things up" a few times, but if they really ar…

Post by sleepybrett » Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 2:27 AM UTC

strict9 wrote: post #59

stephengillie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CEO ... believed that regularly letting people go was a way of eliminating bad apples and forcing people to work harder and smarter. Microsoft called it Stack Ranking.

Presumably it wasn't structured like MS's stack ranking, it was arbitrary. It's a weird feeling to come in regularly and be uncertain if you'd still be employed by the end of week, but not for anything you specifically did. Now that I think about it, it was a bizarrely nepotistic environment. An engineering manager would hire their friends, many speculated as at least partial insurance against being fired. But once t…

Post by dunpeal » Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 2:31 AM UTC

woolvalley wrote: post #313

barrow-rider wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be on par, but that's total comp. My understanding is that the 'Flix doesn't do bennies, matching, vesting over time, etc., they just throw straight cash at you. Reduces their overhead -- no plan administrators, etc. -- and no abstractions or surprise fine print in the 401k matching or classes of stock or whatever.

Netflix has taxable free uber rides for commuting employees, so I would say they definitely have benefits.