5 ms·

@monsky: (Somehow this got disconnected from the thread below.) The headline of the slide you pulled that from is literally "Hard Work—Not Relevant." Netflix

@monsky: (Somehow this got disconnected from the thread below.) The headline of the slide you pulled that from is literally "Hard Work—Not Relevant." Netflix doesn't care if you work 100 hours a week, they care how well you perform. If you can do an amazing job in 30 hours a week, they're one of the few places which would actually embrace you. > I'm not sure how Netflix grades things... but in school B is "Above average". So what? Why on Earth should Netflix be targeting "average" workers when they deliberately pay twice the average. That's about as ridiculous as saying that Harvard should stop admitting A students because "B" is average. Netflix has a deliberate strategy of keeping their engineering bar very high and paying accordingly. That doesn't mean they want you to sacrifice your life to the company. Also, Netflix is in no way a startup.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
erikb 11y ago
The problem about the idea of "doing great things in 30 hours" is that people who are not directly involved with implementation and deployment usually think that each and every 2 day task takes at most 2 hours, because we humans are unable to expect the complexity that most tasks have on this planet. (every time you think about a college, super market employee etc "just do your job man" you are experiencing that fallacy) And then you as the 30 hours employee are faced with not delivering 40 hours of work in 30 hours (which is possible if you are smarter, more involved, have more experience etc) but no you are expected to do 160 hours of work in 30 hours, because you don't compete with the other engineers but you compete with the expectation of your manager. We need to accept that most people (colleagues, employees, customers, bosses) will always be disappointed by the results we achieved because they had unrealistic expectations to begin with. And we must excuse them because we do the same the other way around. That is why "40 hour week" is so relevant. Because then you can say after working hard for 40 hours, really doing all you can, maybe even achieving 30% more than your colleagues, that time is up and you need to take care of your children, wife, parents, friends and hobbies you may have. Now let's assume for a moment that all I said was BS. Let's assume I'm super untalented and for most people it's actually possible to achieve in 30 hours enough to impress their leaders. Now you do it once. You do it twice. Maybe thrice. But at that point your leader will adjust in his head, maybe without realising, what 100% means for you. So the fourth time he doesn't think it's awesome anymore. The tenth time he thinks you are lazy. And now you have to achieve 50 hours of work in 30 hours. It still doesn't work out.
- smokeyj 11y ago
  > And now you have to achieve 50 hours of work in 30 hours. Could this argument not be made about the 40hr week?
  - amouat 11y ago
    Only if everybody else was working 50 hour weeks.
    - smokeyj 11y ago
      It has nothing to do with everyone else. If you impressed your boss while sticking to a 40hr week, they'll only be impressed so long before it becomes your norm. In which case you bump up your hours to maintain your prestige. I don't buy that reasoning, just saying it goes both ways.
  - erikb 11y ago
    Sorry, I wasn't able to express myself clearly. If you fix a 40 hour week your boss is disappointed that you stop working at 40 hours. If you do not have a fixed amount of hours your boss will still be disappointed, but you have no good reason to ever stop working. Without the 40 hour limit you work more and more and more and still disappoint your boss. The disappointment can't be avoided. But the unlimited overtime can be avoided, by limiting the amount of hours you work.
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  This is deeply true
tlinton 11y ago
Netflix doesn't necessarily pay the best, but they pay well. Read this: http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664 http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664
- steven2012 11y ago
  They pay their senior software engineers $350k+ per year.
  - mikeryan 11y ago
    Not according to Glassdoor. Average Senior Software Engineer is $212k per year in total compensation. Directors of engineering are at $328.
    - steven2012 11y ago
      No it's $350k+. First off, I got this information first hand from someone I know who got a job offer there. Second, go check the H1B salaries from 2015, that shows the real salaries, not glassdoor.
    - jedberg 11y ago
      Glassdoor is wrong. The pay at Netflix is much higher than it shows there. GP is much closer to the truth, but still low. Source: I was a senior engineer at Netflix.
      - zerr 11y ago
        > GP is much closer to the truth, but still low > Source: I was a senior engineer at Netflix. OK, suppose it was $400K+. How do you describe your life (-work) balance? Also, may I ask you - was it your decision to leave Netflix? (and what you didn't like there?) Another thing: as you can see one can have wrong expectations - e.g. on salary negotiations one can ask for 250-300K while as you say, the norm is much higher... So do Netflix propose alternative much higher salary compared to what you've asked?
monksy 11y ago
I meant to say there will be an average at Netflix. When you're being compared to others. Not everone can be an "A" level individual.
- morgante 11y ago
  That doesn't make any sense and is a deliberate misreading of the slide. It's well-accepted that when you say "our team is made of A-players" you're grading against the overall industry, not within your individual team. Grading within teams leads to perverse systems like stack ranking.
gozo 11y ago
The problem with only having "A" talent is that you become very vulnerable of bias in your own criteria. People often primer more concrete skills like in-depth knowledge. While sometimes you just need people who are more motivated to do whatever. It's a classic problem of successful sports teams for instance. They buy a lot of high profile players that end up not working very well together, won't adapt to new situations and are sensitive to failure.
- morgante 11y ago
  Yes, that's true but it's also part of why Netflix also has a "fire fast" culture (unlikely sports teams). So people who can't adapt their skills to performing well in a team aren't kept long. Efficiency pay (which Netflix heavily practices) does a great job of attracting people who are "motivated to do whatever."
kriro 11y ago
I think the general idea that results should be the only relevant metric is good. I'm a bit worried that the mantra could have bad long term implications though. Iirc. I read a study from the domain of education science that basically said "always praise work ethic, rarely praise results" and it seemed convincing at the time. [I'll see if I can find it later and edit it in]
- morgante 11y ago
  That's probably true when it comes to education, but the primary purpose of an employer isn't education.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

erikb 11y ago

The problem about the idea of "doing great things in 30 hours" is that people who are not directly involved with implementation and deployment usually think that each and every 2 day task takes at most 2 hours, because we humans are unable to expect the complexity that most tasks have on this planet. (every time you think about a college, super market employee etc "just do your job man" you are experiencing that fallacy) And then you as the 30 hours employee are faced with not delivering 40 hours of work in 30 hours (which is possible if you are smarter, more involved, have more experience etc) but no you are expected to do 160 hours of work in 30 hours, because you don't compete with the other engineers but you compete with the expectation of your manager. We need to accept that most people (colleagues, employees, customers, bosses) will always be disappointed by the results we achieved because they had unrealistic expectations to begin with. And we must excuse them because we do the same the other way around. That is why "40 hour week" is so relevant. Because then you can say after working hard for 40 hours, really doing all you can, maybe even achieving 30% more than your colleagues, that time is up and you need to take care of your children, wife, parents, friends and hobbies you may have. Now let's assume for a moment that all I said was BS. Let's assume I'm super untalented and for most people it's actually possible to achieve in 30 hours enough to impress their leaders. Now you do it once. You do it twice. Maybe thrice. But at that point your leader will adjust in his head, maybe without realising, what 100% means for you. So the fourth time he doesn't think it's awesome anymore. The tenth time he thinks you are lazy. And now you have to achieve 50 hours of work in 30 hours. It still doesn't work out.

smokeyj 11y ago
> And now you have to achieve 50 hours of work in 30 hours. Could this argument not be made about the 40hr week?
- amouat 11y ago
  Only if everybody else was working 50 hour weeks.
  - smokeyj 11y ago
    It has nothing to do with everyone else. If you impressed your boss while sticking to a 40hr week, they'll only be impressed so long before it becomes your norm. In which case you bump up your hours to maintain your prestige. I don't buy that reasoning, just saying it goes both ways.
- erikb 11y ago
  Sorry, I wasn't able to express myself clearly. If you fix a 40 hour week your boss is disappointed that you stop working at 40 hours. If you do not have a fixed amount of hours your boss will still be disappointed, but you have no good reason to ever stop working. Without the 40 hour limit you work more and more and more and still disappoint your boss. The disappointment can't be avoided. But the unlimited overtime can be avoided, by limiting the amount of hours you work.
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
This is deeply true

tlinton 11y ago

Netflix doesn't necessarily pay the best, but they pay well. Read this: http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664 http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664

steven2012 11y ago
They pay their senior software engineers $350k+ per year.
- mikeryan 11y ago
  Not according to Glassdoor. Average Senior Software Engineer is $212k per year in total compensation. Directors of engineering are at $328.
  - steven2012 11y ago
    No it's $350k+. First off, I got this information first hand from someone I know who got a job offer there. Second, go check the H1B salaries from 2015, that shows the real salaries, not glassdoor.
  - jedberg 11y ago
    Glassdoor is wrong. The pay at Netflix is much higher than it shows there. GP is much closer to the truth, but still low. Source: I was a senior engineer at Netflix.
    - zerr 11y ago
      > GP is much closer to the truth, but still low > Source: I was a senior engineer at Netflix. OK, suppose it was $400K+. How do you describe your life (-work) balance? Also, may I ask you - was it your decision to leave Netflix? (and what you didn't like there?) Another thing: as you can see one can have wrong expectations - e.g. on salary negotiations one can ask for 250-300K while as you say, the norm is much higher... So do Netflix propose alternative much higher salary compared to what you've asked?

monksy 11y ago

I meant to say there will be an average at Netflix. When you're being compared to others. Not everone can be an "A" level individual.

morgante 11y ago
That doesn't make any sense and is a deliberate misreading of the slide. It's well-accepted that when you say "our team is made of A-players" you're grading against the overall industry, not within your individual team. Grading within teams leads to perverse systems like stack ranking.

gozo 11y ago

The problem with only having "A" talent is that you become very vulnerable of bias in your own criteria. People often primer more concrete skills like in-depth knowledge. While sometimes you just need people who are more motivated to do whatever. It's a classic problem of successful sports teams for instance. They buy a lot of high profile players that end up not working very well together, won't adapt to new situations and are sensitive to failure.

morgante 11y ago
Yes, that's true but it's also part of why Netflix also has a "fire fast" culture (unlikely sports teams). So people who can't adapt their skills to performing well in a team aren't kept long. Efficiency pay (which Netflix heavily practices) does a great job of attracting people who are "motivated to do whatever."

kriro 11y ago

I think the general idea that results should be the only relevant metric is good. I'm a bit worried that the mantra could have bad long term implications though. Iirc. I read a study from the domain of education science that basically said "always praise work ethic, rarely praise results" and it seemed convincing at the time. [I'll see if I can find it later and edit it in]

morgante 11y ago
That's probably true when it comes to education, but the primary purpose of an employer isn't education.