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

131–140 of 335 posts

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

#131

Post by tspike »

maxxxxx wrote: post #113
ChuckMcM wrote: post #111

Netflix has tried to recruit me a couple of times, I interviewed on site both times (after having the recruiter send me the slide deck that they use to explain their culture so it wouldn't be a surprise). For one of the sessions I had the extraordinary opportunity to talk to the manager for the role, their manager, and two people who had previously been in the role (Netflix wasn't aware that I knew those people). Wha…

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.

I'm sure they do, they just assume that the benefits of ensuring low performers don't accumulate outweigh the costs of letting go some good talent.

That said, I think quota policies are bullshit.

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

#132

Post by lz400 »

strangerlands wrote: post #40
gonehome wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pay is extreme - top of market, but I think more than people realize (even people in silicon valley). I've heard 400k cash is not that uncommon.

It is very common. Senior Software Engineers are commonly at 400+ up to 7-800. Director level for Software, Data Eng, Data Science are very rarely under 600+. VP in the same areas rarely (never?) under 800+.

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

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

#133

Post by SeanBoocock »

ghaff wrote: post #89
Sharlin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll never understand US-style at will employment. It just seems so barbaric and arbitrary. Where I'm from the current conservative government just proposed legislation that would make it slightly easier to fire people in small companies (at most dozen employees or so). This caused the left-leaning part of the country to throw a collective hissy-fit, including several political strikes organized by major unions.

It also means that US employees are able to leave the next day if they want and that company hiring decisions don't have to factor in that it's going to be really really hard to get rid of someone if they don't work out or circumstances change. It allows a lot for flexibility for everyone, with some costs.

Sure, but those costs are borne disproportionately by employees, and of those by people in lower skill positions.

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

#134

Post by type_enthusiast »

dunpeal wrote: post #37

> Many employees say they see the keeper test as a guise for ordinary workplace politics while some managers say they feel pressure to fire people or risk looking soft. Postmortem emails and meetings explaining why people got fired are viewed by some employees as awkward and theatrical when the audiences can be dozens or even hundreds of people. So every employee gets to be badmouthed in front of as many as hundreds…

> So every employee gets to be badmouthed in front of as many as hundreds of former co-workers, as Netflix's special parting gift?

This isn't what happens, as far as I've seen. These e-mails/meetings don't badmouth people or imply that they weren't competent. They give context around specific ways in which the person wasn't meeting expectations (as well as outlining out the ways in which the person was positively contributing). IME it's valuable context and isn't an assault on anyone's dignity (or "trash talking") like you're suggesting.

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

#135

Post by dsnuh »

maxxxxx wrote: post #120
dsnuh wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is stopping a group from learning a new tech, regardless of whether change is organic or imposed by management? Or are you saying you have seen people get replaced with zero warning that new technology was being introduced? That's definitely not been my experience.

This was mainly in large companies where departments are quite large and the regular workers don't really see what's going on. I have seen people in one department being told to keep working on their current stuff while new people were hired for the new tech. Once the new people were up to speed the old department was laid off. There was no effort to get current employees involved.

The entire department? No one saw the writing on the wall and studied up on the new tech to stay relevant?

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

#136

Post by obstacle1 »

throwaway359087 wrote: post #88
dunpeal wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get similar comp at Google and Facebook, to name just two examples. Why should I choose Netflix if I can get the same pay there, minus the BS? Also, I won't have to live in Los Gatos.

Don’t choose them. It sucks I just said that. But working at Google or Facebook is totally different. Netflix has a couple hundred engineers. They aren’t involved in selling ad funded content. I wouldn’t want to work at google or facebook

Netflix had 5,700 employees in 2017, and only a 'couple hundred' of those were engineers?

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

#137

Post by flukus »

dsnuh wrote: post #135
maxxxxx wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was mainly in large companies where departments are quite large and the regular workers don't really see what's going on. I have seen people in one department being told to keep working on their current stuff while new people were hired for the new tech. Once the new people were up to speed the old department was laid off. There was no effort to get current employees involved.

The entire department? No one saw the writing on the wall and studied up on the new tech to stay relevant?

Consider our industries project failure rate. I've been on projects where it was the new team on the new tech stack that's let go and the guys maintaining the 20 year old system get a huge boost to their negotiating power.

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

#138

Post by artwr »

bradknowles wrote: post #25
throwaway4195 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the exact same experience with a well known startup in SF. I got a glowing "Outstanding" review in the previous quarter. My manager left and the new manager who came in took just 15 days (with a single one on one meeting) to decide she din't like me and fired me without offering much of a reason.

UT Austin was much like that for me. Highest possible ratings from the previous manager, and then the new manager was hired. Technically, I was caught in the campus-wide 10% across-the-board layoffs, but it's very clear why I was made eligible for that list. Funny that it happened to be the same month that I was recovering from surgery to remove my cancerous thyroid gland.

For what it's worth, I am sorry that happened to you. That's terrible.

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

#140

Post by faizshah »

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.
Post reply on HN