5 ms·

> I've never encountered any company, nor heard of one, that enacts the advice of that Jobs quote. You should read our culture deck (especially the section abo

> I've never encountered any company, nor heard of one, that enacts the advice of that Jobs quote. You should read our culture deck (especially the section about "context, not control", starting at slide 80): http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664 http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664

p4wnc6 10y ago
I've read the Netflix document many times. To be fair, I don't have any special knowledge about working at Netflix to suggest that Netflix doesn't actually empower specialists. I am curious if Netflix avoids Agile/Scrum or offers real private working conditions though, and if not, why not? Answers focused on "collaboration" would count as evidence that, contrary to the slide deck, you aren't actually "hiring smart people and getting out of their way."
- RKoutnik 10y ago
  Generally we have cubes (as far as working space goes). It's up to the teams if they want Agile/Scrum (most don't, a few find it useful, folks are encouraged to experiment). Collaboration, in contrast to many other valley companies, isn't a big priority. Since we only hire senior (Finder) devs, each is capable of taking on one or more projects almost solo. So where you'd have an ~8 person team at Google, Netflix has a single developer. There are pros & cons to this approach, I might talk about them in a future article. The practical upshot is that everyone does what they think is best for their particular project (others are encouraged to provide feedback but the ultimate decision is left up to the project owner [who is not a manager]). Does that help?
  - douche 10y ago
    Sounds like nirvana
  - p4wnc6 10y ago
    If you can guarantee that non-Agile teams never have deliverables required for Agile teams (and it sounds like such a guarantee is something you strive for), then this seems reasonable. But it seems very fragile if you can't guarantee that condition. "Do what you feel is best" is the right attitude, so at least it suggests you treat employees as grown-ups. But I would worry how that "do what you feel is best" property could possibly trickle down to subordinates within Agile teams.
    - RKoutnik 10y ago
      > But I would worry how that "do what you feel is best" property could possibly trickle down to subordinates within Agile teams. Simple, we don't have subordinates (at least as far as I know). Netflix only hires Sr. devs and then empowers them.
      - p4wnc6 10y ago
        Subordinate is just anybody who has to take direct instruction from someone else. Doesn't have to be codified via job title. If you have a "team" that does Agile, you thereby have subordinates (the members of that team, subordinate to whomever is reviewing e.g. burndown) even if no one calls them subordinates or explicitly thinks of them that way.
  - dasmoth 10y ago
    The emphasis on individuals is refreshing. Saying "the team decides" isn't a huge help when "teams" get thrown together with little regard to preferred working styles.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - pnathan 10y ago
    > Collaboration, in contrast to many other valley companies, isn't a big priority. Since we only hire senior (Finder) devs, each is capable of taking on one or more projects almost solo. So where you'd have an ~8 person team at Google, Netflix has a single developer. There are pros & cons to this approach, I might talk about them in a future article. The practical upshot is that everyone does what they think is best for their particular project (others are encouraged to provide feedback but the ultimate decision is left up to the project owner [who is not a manager]). Love to hear more about this sometime.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  FWIW, Agile/Scrum is not, by itself, something that smart people would avoid. It's good for certain situations and bad for others, like every other management technique. I use (a lightweight form of) it to manage my own projects when they reach the "mopping up, fix all the little details that the customer will be annoyed by" phase, and I am both CEO, manager, and sole developer, so it's clearly not a power thing. :-) The question you should be asking is when would you want to use Agile or Scrum. An answer of "All the time! It's the greatest thing ever" indicates either stupidity or limited experience. But an answer of "We never use that bullshit" also indicates either stupidity or limited experience. Good managers and good cultures deal in shades of grey, and are able to drill into the details of the situation to identify when a technique is appropriate.
  - p4wnc6 10y ago
    Abortions for some ... miniature American flags for others!
- mindcrime 10y ago
  I am curious if Netflix avoids Agile What elements of the Agile Manifesto[1] do you disagree with, exactly? [1]: http://agilemanifesto.org/ http://agilemanifesto.org/
  - RKoutnik 10y ago
    There's a distinction between 'agile' (the manifesto) and Capital-A Agile. I believe your parent comment is referring to the latter, where Agile has just become yet another way for managers to control their underlings. ...I mean seriously, "Agile process" is an oxymoron and terribad managers go around saying it without a hint of irony. Seriously?!?
    - mindcrime 10y ago
      There's a distinction between 'agile' (the manifesto) and Capital-A Agile. Yeah, that's kinda my point. People throw the word "agile" around as though it has one precise meaning, when it clearly doesn't. And IMO, the kind of "Agile" that people are railing against is so far removed that it doesn't deserve any association whatsoever with the expression "agile". And then there's the thing where people act like "Scrum" == "Agile" when Scrum is just one of many processes that claim some degree of affiliation with the "agile" world-view. All of that said, I get the vibe that some people either don't agree that there is a distinction, or don't care, and have a blanket "agile is bad" mindset. It's frustrating to me, as I've experienced a shop with a well run Scrum process (when I was at Lulu.com) and I know from experience that, done right, it's a pleasurable and effective way to work.
      - p4wnc6 10y ago
        So few implementations of Agile have the slightest connection to the quality-focused spirit of the Agile principles that there is no such thing to talk about "Agile" apart from the ubiquitous failure mode. You say, >the kind of "Agile" that people are railing against is so far removed that it doesn't deserve any association whatsoever with the expression "agile" but I say that the idealized notion of "agile" you're talking about simply does not exist in reality, and no company using Agile even comes remotely close to it. The fact that Agile is so easily subverted is an indication of how poor a tool it is, and in the end when everyone is misusing a certain tool (the way that everyone misuses Agile) you have to stop doing mental gymnastics to defend the tool and acknowledge the widespread failure is the tool's fault.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

p4wnc6 10y ago

I've read the Netflix document many times. To be fair, I don't have any special knowledge about working at Netflix to suggest that Netflix doesn't actually empower specialists. I am curious if Netflix avoids Agile/Scrum or offers real private working conditions though, and if not, why not? Answers focused on "collaboration" would count as evidence that, contrary to the slide deck, you aren't actually "hiring smart people and getting out of their way."

RKoutnik 10y ago
Generally we have cubes (as far as working space goes). It's up to the teams if they want Agile/Scrum (most don't, a few find it useful, folks are encouraged to experiment). Collaboration, in contrast to many other valley companies, isn't a big priority. Since we only hire senior (Finder) devs, each is capable of taking on one or more projects almost solo. So where you'd have an ~8 person team at Google, Netflix has a single developer. There are pros & cons to this approach, I might talk about them in a future article. The practical upshot is that everyone does what they think is best for their particular project (others are encouraged to provide feedback but the ultimate decision is left up to the project owner [who is not a manager]). Does that help?
- douche 10y ago
  Sounds like nirvana
- p4wnc6 10y ago
  If you can guarantee that non-Agile teams never have deliverables required for Agile teams (and it sounds like such a guarantee is something you strive for), then this seems reasonable. But it seems very fragile if you can't guarantee that condition. "Do what you feel is best" is the right attitude, so at least it suggests you treat employees as grown-ups. But I would worry how that "do what you feel is best" property could possibly trickle down to subordinates within Agile teams.
  - RKoutnik 10y ago
    > But I would worry how that "do what you feel is best" property could possibly trickle down to subordinates within Agile teams. Simple, we don't have subordinates (at least as far as I know). Netflix only hires Sr. devs and then empowers them.
    - p4wnc6 10y ago
      Subordinate is just anybody who has to take direct instruction from someone else. Doesn't have to be codified via job title. If you have a "team" that does Agile, you thereby have subordinates (the members of that team, subordinate to whomever is reviewing e.g. burndown) even if no one calls them subordinates or explicitly thinks of them that way.
- dasmoth 10y ago
  The emphasis on individuals is refreshing. Saying "the team decides" isn't a huge help when "teams" get thrown together with little regard to preferred working styles.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pnathan 10y ago
  > Collaboration, in contrast to many other valley companies, isn't a big priority. Since we only hire senior (Finder) devs, each is capable of taking on one or more projects almost solo. So where you'd have an ~8 person team at Google, Netflix has a single developer. There are pros & cons to this approach, I might talk about them in a future article. The practical upshot is that everyone does what they think is best for their particular project (others are encouraged to provide feedback but the ultimate decision is left up to the project owner [who is not a manager]). Love to hear more about this sometime.
nostrademons 10y ago
FWIW, Agile/Scrum is not, by itself, something that smart people would avoid. It's good for certain situations and bad for others, like every other management technique. I use (a lightweight form of) it to manage my own projects when they reach the "mopping up, fix all the little details that the customer will be annoyed by" phase, and I am both CEO, manager, and sole developer, so it's clearly not a power thing. :-) The question you should be asking is when would you want to use Agile or Scrum. An answer of "All the time! It's the greatest thing ever" indicates either stupidity or limited experience. But an answer of "We never use that bullshit" also indicates either stupidity or limited experience. Good managers and good cultures deal in shades of grey, and are able to drill into the details of the situation to identify when a technique is appropriate.
- p4wnc6 10y ago
  Abortions for some ... miniature American flags for others!
mindcrime 10y ago
I am curious if Netflix avoids Agile What elements of the Agile Manifesto[1] do you disagree with, exactly? [1]: http://agilemanifesto.org/ http://agilemanifesto.org/
- RKoutnik 10y ago
  There's a distinction between 'agile' (the manifesto) and Capital-A Agile. I believe your parent comment is referring to the latter, where Agile has just become yet another way for managers to control their underlings. ...I mean seriously, "Agile process" is an oxymoron and terribad managers go around saying it without a hint of irony. Seriously?!?
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    There's a distinction between 'agile' (the manifesto) and Capital-A Agile. Yeah, that's kinda my point. People throw the word "agile" around as though it has one precise meaning, when it clearly doesn't. And IMO, the kind of "Agile" that people are railing against is so far removed that it doesn't deserve any association whatsoever with the expression "agile". And then there's the thing where people act like "Scrum" == "Agile" when Scrum is just one of many processes that claim some degree of affiliation with the "agile" world-view. All of that said, I get the vibe that some people either don't agree that there is a distinction, or don't care, and have a blanket "agile is bad" mindset. It's frustrating to me, as I've experienced a shop with a well run Scrum process (when I was at Lulu.com) and I know from experience that, done right, it's a pleasurable and effective way to work.
    - p4wnc6 10y ago
      So few implementations of Agile have the slightest connection to the quality-focused spirit of the Agile principles that there is no such thing to talk about "Agile" apart from the ubiquitous failure mode. You say, >the kind of "Agile" that people are railing against is so far removed that it doesn't deserve any association whatsoever with the expression "agile" but I say that the idealized notion of "agile" you're talking about simply does not exist in reality, and no company using Agile even comes remotely close to it. The fact that Agile is so easily subverted is an indication of how poor a tool it is, and in the end when everyone is misusing a certain tool (the way that everyone misuses Agile) you have to stop doing mental gymnastics to defend the tool and acknowledge the widespread failure is the tool's fault.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]