Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

Post by reactordev » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 10:03 AM UTC

aljgz wrote: post #247

kunley wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. It's just admitting that the company can and will be cynical when it comes to the conflict of interests between them and the employee. Making friends at the workplace is fine until there is such conflict, then where will they stand? If they will turn they back on you (and most of them will), then how much is such relation worth in the first place?

How's that different from friends at your sports club? How does the risk of your workplace friends not taking your side balance against the benefit of the possibility that they will support you? Should I give up years of joy and sense of community and belonging for the fear that someday my workplace friends will betray me? And then years more of suffering in my next workplace? A strategy that minimizes risk rarely ma…

Post by kilroy123 » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 10:05 AM UTC

Johnny555 wrote: post #57

Offsite retreats seem like a bad idea in general, I've never been to one where I felt the team or company worked together better afterwards, and I've seen some spectacularly bad results... like the time the facilitator tried to get to the bottom of tensions between the CTO and head of sales (the classic problem of "Engineering isn't shipping features fast enough" and "Sales is selling features before even consulting…

Post by Archer6621 » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 10:09 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #146

rdtsc wrote: post #56

> Adam Mendler, a workplace expert, told Inc. that this kind of exercise carries real risk when companies invite openness without ever clarifying how that vulnerability will be treated afterward. I always felt that those trust exercises, "bring your whole self to work", "let us pay for a personality test so we can know each other better" are all ruses to find the most gullible people and then take advantage of them o…

There's a huge difference between being yourself and not having a filter. I absolutely think people should be themselves at work. In my mind this generally means not acting like a robot or treating other people like toasters. It is psychologically crushing to operate in a they're all workplace where people do that. The best managers I've ever had were those I could discuss my emotions or that of my team with. That sa…

Post by psd1 » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 10:10 AM UTC

happymellon wrote: post #240

jraby3 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have one annually for my company. It's at a casino, with a few scheduled meals and some activities (video game room, trivia done by a professional company). It's voluntary and employees are allowed to bring their spouse. I think it helps a lot with communication, especially since we are a distributed team and most peoplr don't see each other. But it's hard for me to know for sure, no one tells the owners the truth…

I guess it's a personal thing, but I don't see how everyone going to a casino is a great idea, or developing team relationships.

Post by reactordev » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 10:11 AM UTC

crossroadsguy wrote: post #145

reactordev wrote: post #43

Your company, your coworkers, are not your friends. HR is not there for you, it's to protect the company from you. Do not disclose personal information to those who control your livelihood. Once you leave or if you build up a personal relationship with a coworker, outside of work, then maybe. Even still. I will never divulge what I have been through simply because corporate wants to be "inclusive".

I was rejected in a hiring process because a co-worker worked there. They asked him for feedback in the final hiring decision. I was being considered for a senior staff role. The meeting room had two of my ex-co-workers. One was the person who had referred me and was my tech lead at a previous work place. This (feedback giver) co-worker (my peer; from yet another work place) told them all was great and hunky dory but…