7 ms·

> Sustained B-level performance, despite "A for effort", generates a generous severance package, with respect. You've got to love these startups who basically

by monksy 11y ago

> Sustained B-level performance, despite "A for effort", generates a generous severance package, with respect. You've got to love these startups who basically say "if you're not giving us everything beyond what we expect... go screw yourself. I'm not sure how Netflix grades things... but in school B is "Above average". Is Netflix looking to employee and develop people or are they looking to extract life from people?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
lechevalierd3on 11y ago
Sounds like the right way to make sure you only attract great team players.
- monksy 11y ago
  There are really a few outcomes on that: you're going to hire people that will rip each other apart to get the A ranking, your going to get a group of people that are so afraid of screwing up that they're basically neutered, out your going to get everyone cooking the books. I can't see this requirement on the individual actually doing anything for the team.
sbov 11y ago
The difference is that they back that statement up with A-level compensation. Most startups don't. Also, is Netflix still a startup?
- monksy 11y ago
  That's the startup mentality: "we can't develop our employees" because they're being cheap and naïve.
  - morgante 11y ago
    Netflix is anything but cheap when it comes to employees.
- runT1ME 11y ago
  In terms of total compensation are they really that much different from other big companies? I know a fair amount of folks making Netflix level money when you factor in stock. They just give it in cash. shrug
  - mahyarm 11y ago
    I want to second this about netflix. They pay the same total, but have different requirements.
  - cloverich 11y ago
    An argument I've heard against this is that stock (etc.) is a way to give delayed money; it depends on you being locked in, the company not tanking, etc. The "equivalent" money now is more valuable. I'd love to hear a refutation of that, along with what these salaries are.
    - encoderer 11y ago
      Yes, principle of time value of money says you need to discount future money. But deferred compensation is also deferred tax and it can be very useful to be able to reduce/avoid a big tax bill. Actual dollars? Sr Engineer base pay at $175k+. Mid level at 135k. There are plenty of formerly middle class engineers making over $300k a year including equity. People often discount startup equity while overlooking the very lucrative large tech company equity. (Fb, goog, etc). My source for this is both friends and hiring in this market. To be sure not every eng in sfba is paid this amount. But they probably could be if they were willing to optimize for comp.
  - steven2012 11y ago
    I mention above Netflix pays Senior Software Engineers over $350k/yr. This is far above anything any other company does by a wide margin. I'm not sure how much Google or Facebook employees make, but are they really making upwards of $400k/yr total comp?
sharkweek 11y ago
I mean, what do you expect them to say? "We look for a SOLID B- out of everyone here." I know a handful of people who work for Netflix, and they all love it, although some have commented it's a hire slow / fire fast environment, but once you're out of that initial trial period, it's a great place to work.
- monksy 11y ago
  Even a b- is above average. Wither they like it or not, there will be average.
  - patmcc 11y ago
    Not if they pay twice what the average is (which they do, by most accounts). You can have the best of the best, you just have to pay for it. Netflix does.
    - vacri 11y ago
      I've always found it amusing when companies say they hire "the best of the best", but offer only market rates or (usually) lower.
jluxenberg 11y ago
Netflix hires very few entry level engineers. I just checked their jobs page[1] and there are almost no postings for non-senior engineers. I'd argue that a senior engineer should be highly effective while still developing in her role. Also, expectations for different "levels" of engineer vary. Typically an "exceeds expectations" performance review for "Senior SDE" would be neutral for e.g. a "Staff SDE." [1] curl 'https://ats-api.netflix.com/postings' https://ats-api.netflix.com/postings' | jq '.postings[]|select(.organization[] | contains("Engineering"))|.text' | grep -v Senior
mentat 11y ago
The levels are not seniority, they are an approach to learning and programming. Junior A level people are not the same as B level people. Hiring B level people to "just finish" what the A level people have done is an invitation to delays and failure.
- luizb 11y ago
  Can someone clarify what : - A level - B level - C level are?
  - scintill76 11y ago
    The analogy apparently switched from "A" and "B" the grades/marks in school (hence "A for effort", where A is better than B), to something like the "A team" vs "B team", where the A-team is the elite performers and the B is not as good. Also "C-level" was not brought up until you, but it usually means executives. :) Although, I see there is at least one person out there who has a concept of a "B-level manager" http://smallbusiness.chron.com/blevel-manager-35848.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/blevel-manager-35848.html so I am less sure about my reading of my grandparent comment.
    - luizb 11y ago
      C-level, I meant executives :)
baddox 11y ago
> "if you're not giving us everything beyond what we expect... go screw yourself. I'm not sure how that makes sense. Netflix can't expect employees to surpass their expectations, by definition. I don't see the problem if they're clear about their expectations and send people on their way who either can't or don't wish to fulfill them. I don't know if I have the ability to fulfill their expectations, but I know I have no desire to try and thus no desire to work for them, but I'm fine with other people having different preferences.
- monksy 11y ago
  It's fairly easy. Business asks for something. Business gets mad when what they asked for was wrong, technology failed, bad luck, or they felt like you didn't do more than what they asked.
hitekker 11y ago
Probably the latter. In my view, Netflix (IBM, Amazon, Bloomberg etc) should consider what would happen if they were completely honest to their employees: "You are a cog in our machine. We do not care for you. We only care for your work. We will pay you insofar as you can execute on our vision. Further, you will be paid according to how hard it is to replace you. If you can be replaced by someone who executes significantly better, relative to your pay, we will tell you to leave." Needless to say, stating that would make many of their employees, especially the weak-minded and insecure (those who defend their terrible culture), unhappy. I imagine even those in charge of the culture, speaking those words, would feel bad. And they should feel bad. While such overwhelmingly negative words should almost never be spoken with authority, these decision makers must at least be able to answer the question "What are we really saying to our people?" truthfully. And if the answer is something along the lines of "you're a cog in the machine", then something has gone very wrong[1] In my non-expert opinion, if a company truly wishes to be a "good" place to work, it should know the distance between their words and the truth, and then focus on minimizing that distance. Spoken more simply: the more dishonest a company is to its employees, the worse the culture. [1] Or right, if the company requires joylessness to turn a profit.
- archagon 11y ago
  I've said this before, but how I wish software companies based on the cooperative model[1] were more of a thing. It's not healthy for people to be treated like worker bees. Corporations should be a collaborative effort, and the wealth and decision-making should be distributed proportionally. In a way, the structure of our corporations both reflects and influences our society. A recent study has shown that the US is now more of an oligarchy than a representative democracy. Would we be happier and better off if "working for" was replaced by "working with"? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
  - monksy 11y ago
    I was with you until that employees are deserving of the proportional wealth. The people who took the risk to found the company are deserving of that.
pfranz 11y ago
When I saw this the first thing I thought of is this Planet Money episode about it "Hard Work Is Irrelevant" http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/08/28/435583328/episode-647-hard-work-is-irrelevant http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/08/28/435583328/episo...
olalonde 11y ago
I have no idea how Netflix actually treats its employees, but applying the charity principle leads to other possible interpretations: - B was chosen arbitrarily to drive the point home and could well mean a D on a school grade scale. - They don't want to be too hard on fired employees or hurt their future employability (e.g. even "above average" people get fired over there). I don't know anyone who works at Netflix and I could very well be wrong. Their "performance > effort" policy does however resonate with me.

by monksy 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

lechevalierd3on 11y ago

Sounds like the right way to make sure you only attract great team players.

monksy 11y ago
There are really a few outcomes on that: you're going to hire people that will rip each other apart to get the A ranking, your going to get a group of people that are so afraid of screwing up that they're basically neutered, out your going to get everyone cooking the books. I can't see this requirement on the individual actually doing anything for the team.

sbov 11y ago

The difference is that they back that statement up with A-level compensation. Most startups don't. Also, is Netflix still a startup?

monksy 11y ago
That's the startup mentality: "we can't develop our employees" because they're being cheap and naïve.
- morgante 11y ago
  Netflix is anything but cheap when it comes to employees.
runT1ME 11y ago
In terms of total compensation are they really that much different from other big companies? I know a fair amount of folks making Netflix level money when you factor in stock. They just give it in cash. shrug
- mahyarm 11y ago
  I want to second this about netflix. They pay the same total, but have different requirements.
- cloverich 11y ago
  An argument I've heard against this is that stock (etc.) is a way to give delayed money; it depends on you being locked in, the company not tanking, etc. The "equivalent" money now is more valuable. I'd love to hear a refutation of that, along with what these salaries are.
  - encoderer 11y ago
    Yes, principle of time value of money says you need to discount future money. But deferred compensation is also deferred tax and it can be very useful to be able to reduce/avoid a big tax bill. Actual dollars? Sr Engineer base pay at $175k+. Mid level at 135k. There are plenty of formerly middle class engineers making over $300k a year including equity. People often discount startup equity while overlooking the very lucrative large tech company equity. (Fb, goog, etc). My source for this is both friends and hiring in this market. To be sure not every eng in sfba is paid this amount. But they probably could be if they were willing to optimize for comp.
- steven2012 11y ago
  I mention above Netflix pays Senior Software Engineers over $350k/yr. This is far above anything any other company does by a wide margin. I'm not sure how much Google or Facebook employees make, but are they really making upwards of $400k/yr total comp?

sharkweek 11y ago

I mean, what do you expect them to say? "We look for a SOLID B- out of everyone here." I know a handful of people who work for Netflix, and they all love it, although some have commented it's a hire slow / fire fast environment, but once you're out of that initial trial period, it's a great place to work.

monksy 11y ago
Even a b- is above average. Wither they like it or not, there will be average.
- patmcc 11y ago
  Not if they pay twice what the average is (which they do, by most accounts). You can have the best of the best, you just have to pay for it. Netflix does.
  - vacri 11y ago
    I've always found it amusing when companies say they hire "the best of the best", but offer only market rates or (usually) lower.

jluxenberg 11y ago

Netflix hires very few entry level engineers. I just checked their jobs page[1] and there are almost no postings for non-senior engineers. I'd argue that a senior engineer should be highly effective while still developing in her role. Also, expectations for different "levels" of engineer vary. Typically an "exceeds expectations" performance review for "Senior SDE" would be neutral for e.g. a "Staff SDE." [1] curl 'https://ats-api.netflix.com/postings' https://ats-api.netflix.com/postings' | jq '.postings[]|select(.organization[] | contains("Engineering"))|.text' | grep -v Senior

mentat 11y ago

The levels are not seniority, they are an approach to learning and programming. Junior A level people are not the same as B level people. Hiring B level people to "just finish" what the A level people have done is an invitation to delays and failure.

luizb 11y ago
Can someone clarify what : - A level - B level - C level are?
- scintill76 11y ago
  The analogy apparently switched from "A" and "B" the grades/marks in school (hence "A for effort", where A is better than B), to something like the "A team" vs "B team", where the A-team is the elite performers and the B is not as good. Also "C-level" was not brought up until you, but it usually means executives. :) Although, I see there is at least one person out there who has a concept of a "B-level manager" http://smallbusiness.chron.com/blevel-manager-35848.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/blevel-manager-35848.html so I am less sure about my reading of my grandparent comment.
  - luizb 11y ago
    C-level, I meant executives :)

baddox 11y ago

> "if you're not giving us everything beyond what we expect... go screw yourself. I'm not sure how that makes sense. Netflix can't expect employees to surpass their expectations, by definition. I don't see the problem if they're clear about their expectations and send people on their way who either can't or don't wish to fulfill them. I don't know if I have the ability to fulfill their expectations, but I know I have no desire to try and thus no desire to work for them, but I'm fine with other people having different preferences.

monksy 11y ago
It's fairly easy. Business asks for something. Business gets mad when what they asked for was wrong, technology failed, bad luck, or they felt like you didn't do more than what they asked.

hitekker 11y ago

Probably the latter. In my view, Netflix (IBM, Amazon, Bloomberg etc) should consider what would happen if they were completely honest to their employees: "You are a cog in our machine. We do not care for you. We only care for your work. We will pay you insofar as you can execute on our vision. Further, you will be paid according to how hard it is to replace you. If you can be replaced by someone who executes significantly better, relative to your pay, we will tell you to leave." Needless to say, stating that would make many of their employees, especially the weak-minded and insecure (those who defend their terrible culture), unhappy. I imagine even those in charge of the culture, speaking those words, would feel bad. And they should feel bad. While such overwhelmingly negative words should almost never be spoken with authority, these decision makers must at least be able to answer the question "What are we really saying to our people?" truthfully. And if the answer is something along the lines of "you're a cog in the machine", then something has gone very wrong[1] In my non-expert opinion, if a company truly wishes to be a "good" place to work, it should know the distance between their words and the truth, and then focus on minimizing that distance. Spoken more simply: the more dishonest a company is to its employees, the worse the culture. [1] Or right, if the company requires joylessness to turn a profit.

archagon 11y ago
I've said this before, but how I wish software companies based on the cooperative model[1] were more of a thing. It's not healthy for people to be treated like worker bees. Corporations should be a collaborative effort, and the wealth and decision-making should be distributed proportionally. In a way, the structure of our corporations both reflects and influences our society. A recent study has shown that the US is now more of an oligarchy than a representative democracy. Would we be happier and better off if "working for" was replaced by "working with"? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
- monksy 11y ago
  I was with you until that employees are deserving of the proportional wealth. The people who took the risk to found the company are deserving of that.

pfranz 11y ago

When I saw this the first thing I thought of is this Planet Money episode about it "Hard Work Is Irrelevant" http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/08/28/435583328/episode-647-hard-work-is-irrelevant http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/08/28/435583328/episo...

olalonde 11y ago

I have no idea how Netflix actually treats its employees, but applying the charity principle leads to other possible interpretations: - B was chosen arbitrarily to drive the point home and could well mean a D on a school grade scale. - They don't want to be too hard on fired employees or hurt their future employability (e.g. even "above average" people get fired over there). I don't know anyone who works at Netflix and I could very well be wrong. Their "performance > effort" policy does however resonate with me.