Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What are your company's anti-values?

willsewell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 274 posts

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#261

Post by sdiupIGPWEfh »

p1esk wrote: post #250
sdiupIGPWEfh wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, this is in the context of companies stating they value impact over effort, the sort of places that brag about their work/life balance. If I'm accepting an offer from such an employer and taking this into account during salary negotiations, I will be rightly pissed off to find out the standard is secretly 60-80 hours a week. If they're open about expectations, assuming I'm at a point in my life where the tra…

This thread is specifically about Netflix work culture, as reflected in the old slide deck. Netflix does not brag about work/life balance, and is open about their expectation. Also, they pay their senior SWEs >500k a year. Not quite the NFL level, but it's also not as competitive (there is a lot more SWEs than pro football players). Not to mention serious health hazards involved in pro football. So yeah, it seems lik…

> This thread is specifically about Netflix work culture, as reflected in the old slide deck.

This isn't just about Netflix. The over-arching topic is company anti-values. The context has narrowed since then, first to Netflix, then to a specific slide about not measuring people by hours worked, and so on. But for the heck of it, some other quotes from said slide deck:

> We don't measure people by how many hours they work or how much they are in the office

> Actual company values are the behaviors and skills that are valued in fellow employees.

> Honesty Always

> Pro Sports Team Metaphor is Good, but Imperfect

> Internal "cutthroat" or "sink or swim" behavior is rare and not tolerated.

Again, if the expectation for a workplace like that were 60-80 hours a week, and that fact is clearly and openly communicated, fine.

But if you're making those claims while your top performers are the ones putting in undocumented additional hours and pressuring others to do the same, then I insist that is toxic behavior. Yes, even if they don't brag about work/life balance, though I'll consider it even worse if they do.

> So yeah, it seems like we are in agreement :)

All sarcasm aside, no, we're definitely not!

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#262

Post by mbg721 »

drewcoo wrote: post #215
mbg721 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being ethical is often aligned with being boring. I don't want the employees at my insurance company doing anything exciting with my personal information.

The ethical and boring axes are orthogonal. I didn't expect to read that ethical and boring are aligned during Black History Month (US).

I would still argue that orderly actions that follow an established code tend to be boring, and that such codes are generally set up to encourage ethical actions.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#263

Post by p1esk »

sdiupIGPWEfh wrote: post #261
p1esk wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread is specifically about Netflix work culture, as reflected in the old slide deck. Netflix does not brag about work/life balance, and is open about their expectation. Also, they pay their senior SWEs >500k a year. Not quite the NFL level, but it's also not as competitive (there is a lot more SWEs than pro football players). Not to mention serious health hazards involved in pro football. So yeah, it seems lik…

> This thread is specifically about Netflix work culture, as reflected in the old slide deck. This isn't just about Netflix. The over-arching topic is company anti-values. The context has narrowed since then, first to Netflix, then to a specific slide about not measuring people by hours worked, and so on. But for the heck of it, some other quotes from said slide deck: > We don't measure people by how many hours they…

But if you're making those claims while your top performers are the ones putting in undocumented additional hours and pressuring others to do the same, then I insist that is toxic behavior.

What if your peers actually worked 2 hours a day, and accomplished a lot more than you when you worked 8 hours a day? Would you feel pressured to put in more hours? Would this be toxic?

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#264

Post by sdiupIGPWEfh »

p1esk wrote: post #263
sdiupIGPWEfh wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This thread is specifically about Netflix work culture, as reflected in the old slide deck. This isn't just about Netflix. The over-arching topic is company anti-values. The context has narrowed since then, first to Netflix, then to a specific slide about not measuring people by hours worked, and so on. But for the heck of it, some other quotes from said slide deck: > We don't measure people by how many hours they…

But if you're making those claims while your top performers are the ones putting in undocumented additional hours and pressuring others to do the same, then I insist that is toxic behavior. What if your peers actually worked 2 hours a day, and accomplished a lot more than you when you worked 8 hours a day? Would you feel pressured to put in more hours? Would this be toxic?

I'm sorry, but you keep rephrasing this question, I've answered, and I still don't see how the question is relevant.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#265

Post by p1esk »

sdiupIGPWEfh wrote: post #264
p1esk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you're making those claims while your top performers are the ones putting in undocumented additional hours and pressuring others to do the same, then I insist that is toxic behavior. What if your peers actually worked 2 hours a day, and accomplished a lot more than you when you worked 8 hours a day? Would you feel pressured to put in more hours? Would this be toxic?

I'm sorry, but you keep rephrasing this question, I've answered, and I still don't see how the question is relevant.

Sorry, I can't find where you answered it. Quote?

I believe the question is relevant because you seem to equate delivering results with working long hours, and while the two are usually correlated, it might not be the case when talking about star performers. For example, if my peers are all like Jeff Dean in terms of productivity, I would probably feel inadequate. You could even say I would feel pressured into doing more - not by my peers or even my manager - I'd be pressuring myself. This, to me, does not mean the environment is toxic. And that's why I believe the environment at Netflix is not toxic (assuming no other issues).

I'm trying to understand what you mean by "toxic", that's why I keep asking the question.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#266

Post by durovo »

p1esk wrote: post #253
closeparen wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised. Right off the top you're paying 45% of that in taxes, and if you're saving less than 25% you're failing the marshmallow test in a world-historically spectacular way. FIRE is very popular with this crowd and most save a lot more. You would own a home; that would cost you 10-15% at least. A Netflix engineer who is pretty bad with money but not a totally self-destructing addict might do as much as $7…

I just googled a week-long vacation in Paris in the first half of June: a non-stop business class round trip from LAX is $2,100 per person, and the most expensive hotel I found in the center of Paris is $1,500/night. So for me and my partner this vacation would cost ~$5k for plane tickets + ~$11k hotel + say a grand per day on shopping and dining. The total is $23k. That would be less than one month salary after taxe…

Are you talking about a hypothetical scenario or do you actually do this? I am asking because as people start earning more money, lifestyle creep introduces new types of expenses. So they also have expenses to think about other than business class tickets. Most well-to-do folks that I know tend to spend more hotels than on the travel. Very well-to-do folks do spend on business class tickets though, but a $500k job doesn't fall into that category in my opinion.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#267

Post by p1esk »

durovo wrote: post #266
p1esk wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just googled a week-long vacation in Paris in the first half of June: a non-stop business class round trip from LAX is $2,100 per person, and the most expensive hotel I found in the center of Paris is $1,500/night. So for me and my partner this vacation would cost ~$5k for plane tickets + ~$11k hotel + say a grand per day on shopping and dining. The total is $23k. That would be less than one month salary after taxe…

Are you talking about a hypothetical scenario or do you actually do this? I am asking because as people start earning more money, lifestyle creep introduces new types of expenses. So they also have expenses to think about other than business class tickets. Most well-to-do folks that I know tend to spend more hotels than on the travel. Very well-to-do folks do spend on business class tickets though, but a $500k job do…

I make 250k, and I'm actually tempted now to book that business class flight to Paris - I expected it to cost a lot more. I would not spend 1.5k/night on a hotel because I'm sure I can find a good one for 1/3 of that. So it's not entirely hypothetical for me. If my salary doubles, this becomes a much easier decision. But I don't go on long distance vacations often, so when I do it's easier to justify the costs.

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#268

Post by seanmcdirmid »

p1esk wrote: post #255
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is really cheap, definitely pandemic pricing. You usually can’t get biz class seats for just $2k round trip.

I agree. But the point is - even if it was 30k or 35k, I would still do it without thinking twice about it. I’m perfectly content with spending one month salary on a vacation.

If biz class is $10k and economy is $1k, I'm taking economy even though I make enough money to afford $10k. I just can't justify it. Same with a hotel at $500/night vs. $1500/night...The former I can justify (barely), but the latter just seems insane. If I was a multi-millionaire than things would be different, but normal people luxury is good enough for normal people like me.

I've taken biz class before when it made sense (e.g. $1500 from Beijing to LA one way when economy cost $1000 for the same trip). I've also stayed in a $400/night pool villa in Bali (with a $900 round trip biz class ticket from Beijing via Hong Kong...but that was a steal, RIP Hong Kong Express Airlines), both worth it, both seemed really luxurious to me, I can't imagine doing more than that (though I guess with today's high inflation, it is inevitable that the $400 pool villa will cost $1000 soon).

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#269

Post by 1123581321 »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #260
logifail wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Honesty] and toxicity are orthogonal Q: What's our working definition for "toxicity", specifically in the workplace? I'm not sure they're nearly as orthogonal as one might think. My experiences of toxic workplaces involved a great deal of dishonest behaviour and I'm struggling to recall much if any honesty.

If a slide deck says “management will attempt to throw you under the bus: be prepared and keep a paper trail”, that's both honest, and exhibiting dishonest toxicity. Whether you're toxic and whether you're honest about the toxicity are orthogonal.

What's an example relevant to the slide?

Re: What are your company's anti-values?

#270

Post by 1123581321 »

sakarisson wrote: post #34
hutzlibu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask, what you find toxic about them? I thought them to be refreshing honest and clear (but have not yet read all slides). I mean, it is also not attractive for me, because I would not put what is good for Netflix, over what is good for me - but otherwise I do not think a professional, internal competing sports team as a goal, is necessarily toxic.

I do agree that the honesty is refreshing. That said, I personally feel like the mentality of "We will fire you if you aren't doing an _exceptional_ job" reads as a serious red flag. The implication here is that you should expect to work overtime and prioritize your job over all else. Even then, we might still fire you. Of course I'd rather have a company being open and upfront about their unsustainable expectations,…

Netflix itself uses the analogy of a high-performing sports team, or at least used to. So this would be like if the LA Rams say they will drop you from the team if you aren't NFL caliber. It's hard to read a straightforwardly high expectation to match the environment and coworkers as toxic.

Now, it is toxic if a mediocre organization tries to fire a particular good performer because they aren't exceptional, when clearly the rest of the organization also isn't exceptional. That is dishonest, delusional, etc.

Post reply on HN