Got an offer with Netflix, after the second round of negotiation they take back the offer because offer negotiation was not an option and they see a problem in culture fit. :)
At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks
331–335 of 335 posts
Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks
#332Netflix 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…
Most people running companies don't understand that at scale, HR's most important role is eliminating and mitigating perverse incentives.
Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
sure. those are the incidental parts of their job.
Deciding on compensation structure, recruiting/hiring, and handling things like leave, benefits etc. Can all, depending on the company, fall under the purview of HR. None are primarily to protect the company from liability. There are certainly some parts of the job primarily about avoiding liability but, as go said, that's true for many swes too.
compensation structure is decided by the c suite, or can be. if decided by HR it’s just a convenient delegation of research work.
recruiting is a separate function from HR. even in medium sized companies this is is visible in the reporting chain.
the other things are all outsourceable and these days they are except for large companies and older companies with inertia.
the one thing that isn’t outsourceable or trivially reassigned is liability. That is HR’s core competency, if you will.
Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's no vesting period ; it's dependable, there's no weird dips because an investing firm got spooked; it's liquid, you can spend it at the bar tonight, right now; taxes are straight forward. For the most part, these are all benefits of RSUs at a company like Facebook or Google. They're totally liquid. They "vest", but in short order. This isn't startup equity. It's very much real money.
They are "totally liquid" after 6 months which isn't totally liquid. And those 6 months are subject to the stock market so they inherently carry more risk than base (and higher potential rewards). You seem rather... aggressive with how much you want to downplay the differences and your entire contribution to this thread has been attacking "Netflix apologists" and defending any argument for cash-based salaries. It's f…
> They are "totally liquid" after 6 months which isn't totally liquid.
That is simply untrue. In FAANGs I'm familiar with, vesting can be monthly, very much like cash compensation.
Your other claims are untrue as well.
I'm very much against presenting misleading information, such as comparing total comp at Netflix to base salary alone at other FAANGs. Especially when this misrepresentation is then used to make the blatantly false claim that Netflix comp is substantially higher than other FAANGs.
The number repeatedly quoted in this thread shows the opposite: Netflix total comp appears to be lower than other FAANGs.
I have no agenda here. My initial response to the article was based on what I read in the article. Holding meetings to explain how terminated employees were under-performing - is very toxic in my opinion, and fertile ground for abuse and misrepresentation. Several Netflix employees in this thread seemed to agree with this assessment.
Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So every employee gets to be badmouthed in front of as many as hundreds of former co-workers, as Netflix's special parting gift? Well no. It’s usually very positive about them and generally sad that things couldn’t be made to work. The point is not that they were bad - the idea is Netflix wouldn’t have hired them if that were so! It’s that it just wasn’t a good fit due to misalignment of goals. Perhaps someone does…
> It’s that it just wasn’t a good fit due to misalignment of goals. That's not what Netflix's own spokesman say: > Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees for performance reasons Only "performance reasons", not "misalignment of goals". > Perhaps someone doesn’t want to change or just keeps behaving in a way that they’ve been asked not to. Saying someone "just keeps behaving in a way…
If someone isn’t performing in their role the way the company wants (this may be due to many things, interests, changing role requirements, etc. Doesn’t say anything about the skill of the person involved) and doesn’t want to change that then that is a misalignment of goals. That is also a performance problem.
That you would frame that as exclusively personally negative says more about your judgement than it says about Netflix culture tbh.
Also the fact that I’m contradicting the article (and mostly just the writers inferences rather than the substantive content I might add) and I work there may might be a clue about the accuracy of the article.