No, I actually read an article saied that, you can choose how much do you want to stick your profit to the company, AKA, you can choose how many proportion do you want to get paied by cach or stock.
It is wrong and it is very unlikely that you read it in an article, since it is not a secret. There are no stocks, it is all cash for everybody, at least below the C-suite. You can use up to 100% of your salary to buy stock options at 40% of current value. The options are delivered each month and vest immediately. There is a huge difference between shares and stock options.
They’ve been pushing the same product since inception; they could do nothing except maintain current tech and catalogue, which is what they’ve more or less been doing. So it’s in spite of. They could have any culture, hire a herd of thousands of cats and pay them half a million each, and they wouldn’t lose much. The only thing they need to do to survive is maintain rights to enough shows people are willing to pay for…
They’ve been pushing the same product since inception I don't see how that's true at all. They were originally an American DVD mail order service that rented other people's movies. They're now a global streaming service with a strong content production division. They've change both the product, the business model, the customer base and the tech.
They made that pivot a decade ago now. The current work for most of the tech employees is likely exactly maintenance.
They could be looking at another pivot, but that's yet to be seen.
I always feel that freeloaders are not hurting me personally, so why harm them? And it's not like they bring nothing to the table, it's just less than an ambitious/motivated person would. Last but not least, and why I think most people take on freeloaders and keep them: If they switch to another company and are motivated there, it's better for them personally, but might also mean more competition on the market. There…
>I always feel that freeloaders are not hurting me personally, so why harm them? In my experience, over time, freeloaders tend to become vocal and lobby for policy changes (within the team, not corporatewise) that helps keep them there. I've seen them oppose technically sound decisions because they're not sure they can handle the complexity, or (and more commonly) because it involves skills they don't want to learn.…
Ah I see, there's certainly a clear difference between our evaluation. If I see a whole team of freeloaders I blame the management team above them. At least in engineering teams it's super easy to have motivated teams because the people choose this career out of desire for working as engineers. Loads of freeloaders means there is no fruitful ground for motivated people to grow on. So they leave or turn into slackers, and some even might become toxic themselves. I don't blame the potatoes if they don't grow though, but either the weather or the farmer.
This isn't all that surprising. Almost 10 years ago Reed literally published all these tenants in a culture presentation that made the rounds in SV. It very much mentions keeper test.
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/reed2001
Now what is interesting are the anecdotes about how it impacts people. People often feel motivated by fear, and sometimes feel shamed, etc.
That’s more than double average salary. Seems like worth going for it, even knowing that they will fire you eventually. Hold on for 6 months, make a yearly salary, take 6 months off :)
Most of the time they do not hire average people – in the sense that they are not considered average, then some of them are actually pretty bad, but it is part of the business of false positives.
hmm, from what I have seen, $400k is usually their de-facto salary that gets junior folks (L4/E4) from F/G to make their top of market and move to NFLX. Beyond that, do you know how the comp progression is?
Stories I’ve hear from friends to my family who worked at Netflix made me cringe. Regular meetings where everyone at the meeting have to do presentations about their own recent work at the company and basically have to present why they should stay instead of the ”other guy” who will be fired. No rest with constant fear of being fired or the alternative if you ”make it” is constant preasure of performaning better than…
it's interesting to put this into the larger context of "the US needs more programmers and STEM grads." if that is true, how does Netflix find additional people to hire? how does it survive in a competitive labor market when it treats employees in this way?
Same as Amazon. They offer a great resume builder but are notoriously toxic to work at.
"""One employee expressed the feeling that they live in fear of being fired every day at an executive meeting. A vice president named Karen Barragan was said to have responded: “Good, because fear drives you.” """ isn't this normal (for contractors?) i mean it is terrible (armies whose job is to kill people put a pot of effort into avoiding just such feelings) I do wonder why businesses so easily follow this route.
> fear drives you
maybe it's interesting here that, in the last couple of days on HN, we've seen several stories to the effect that long-term chronic stress is literally damaging people's brains.
given that, i wonder how a Netflix competitor might exploit the defects in this hiring/firing strategy.
No, I actually read an article saied that, you can choose how much do you want to stick your profit to the company, AKA, you can choose how many proportion do you want to get paied by cach or stock.
It is wrong and it is very unlikely that you read it in an article, since it is not a secret. There are no stocks, it is all cash for everybody, at least below the C-suite. You can use up to 100% of your salary to buy stock options at 40% of current value. The options are delivered each month and vest immediately. There is a huge difference between shares and stock options.
if someone invests 100% of their salary in NFLX, do they get a better performance review?
"The study of 261 senior professionals in the United States found that 21 per cent had clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits. The rate of psychopathy in the general population is about one in a hundred."
And I personally think if you examine ceos of highly successful companies, the ratio will be higher than 1 in 5.
Sure it's ONE study. But it actually makes sense. You don't get to the top in modern corporate world (especially hyper competitive one like the tech) without being slightly crazy.