4 ms·

And this precisely is why we Millenials have no qualms about leaving a job. They have no problem divorcing us because of some vapid "performance" metric. How d

by kefka 10y ago

And this precisely is why we Millenials have no qualms about leaving a job. They have no problem divorcing us because of some vapid "performance" metric. How do they quantify understanding how to get things done in that org? I know with my job, I'm learning how the institution hinders growth, except through certain channels. That meta-knowledge is absolutely essential... yet seemingly ignored.

mercer 10y ago
Instinctively and ideologically I mostly oppose the idea of this lack of loyalty toward employees. At the same time, for some reason it bothers me less the way it is presented to work within Netflix. I'm not sure why, though. Maybe it's to do with the fact that there are plenty of jobs in tech right now and Netflix apparently pays very well, enough for a future employee to accept that disadvantage. Partly it's also because of the transparency of it all. Another thing is that it can benefit the employee too, long term. I've worked in many different companies and there were always a bunch of 'holders-on' who held everyone back and didn't even seem happy themselves. I often thought they and the team would be much better off if they found work somewhere else where either they'd feel challenged to develop themselves further, or where their current skills were good enough. I still would not choose to run a company that way myself, but provided that 'performance' is measured in a somewhat accurate way, provided that the compensation offsets this risk, provided that there is honesty about it all, and provided that there are alternative jobs one can find afterwards, well, then I'd at least be curious to see if it works in practice. (and decreasing 'institutional knowledge' is one very big advantage, in my opinion.)
- koralatov 10y ago
  > Partly it's also because of the transparency of it all. What's transparent about it? The process is totally opaque -- some executive evaluates whether they feel you're meeting their standards, which may or may not be obvious, and then decides to let you go if they feel you aren't. I don't think it could be any less transparent.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    That they fire people rather arbitrarily is being written about in a national publication. So someone applying for a job has a good chance of understanding it going into the process. That's a pretty high degree of transparency about how they do things.
    - koralatov 10y ago
      That's not really what we're talking about when we're talking about 'transparency' her. Just because it's known that something happens doesn't mean it happens in a transparent fashion. Transparency of process is important, too, and required before you can really call something 'transparent'. As it stands, the person making the decision could be doing so for totally arbitrary reasons. It doesn't appear that there's an established process or criteria in place beyond "I don't feel like I'd hire X now" -- the rationale "Because Executive Y says so" is not transparent in the slightest.
      - Programmatic 10y ago
        I think the part that is transparent is that you're not going to build your career and retire at Netflix, you know it's a stint. It may be arbitrary and capricious otherwise, but you know that in advance and can decide if it's worth it. I would not mind being in such an environment for a stint, myself.
        mindcrime 10y ago
        I think the part that is transparent is that you're not going to build your career and retire at Netflix, you know it's a stint. But anybody who has been paying attention has known that any job is "just a stint" since at least the 90's, if not the 80's. A big part of the Re-engineering[1] push of the 90's involved reducing costs, at least in part by reducing head-count. And before that, you had the 80's LBO[2] craze, which resulted in dramatic layoffs at many companies. As a Gen-X'er who grew up in the 80's, I have never expected to have a life-long career at a single company, and I can't imagine many - if any - of my peers imagining that either. In this regard, there's nothing unique at Netflix. All jobs are essentially "temp" jobs in this day and age. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout
- athenot 10y ago
  It works for Netflix because they appear to pay above average. So the marketplace can accomodate companies that pay less and tolerate more, as well as ones that are super demanding but pay more. But if the labor market were compressed more like in Europe, all companies could afford that behavior, without having to spend abnomally higher in salaries, and that would be a problem.
  - digler999 10y ago
    my experience has been that when employers "pay above average", what they really mean is they pay 1 employee for the work of 1.5 employees. Do you really think the engineering team goes home at 5pm?
    - aaronblohowiak 10y ago
      The later shuttles leave at 5:10, and then we do some emailing and such on the way home...
- SyneRyder 10y ago
  "I often thought they and the team would be much better off if they found work somewhere else where either they'd feel challenged to develop themselves further, or where their current skills were good enough." This echoes one of the chapters in Fire Someone Today, a book with a seemingly heartless title, written by the CEO of a Bible software company. They had an underperforming employee that everyone liked & no-one wanted to fire, so they moved him through different roles to find something that suited him. After moving him through the entire company with negative results, they finally conceded they had to fire him. The punch line: the employee flourished as soon as he was fired - his dream had been to join the ministry, but he'd worried about quitting a stable job to do so. The rest of the book is pretty good, about 20 anecdotes from running a software business. https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Someone-Today-Surprising-Business/dp/0785212620/ https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Someone-Today-Surprising-Busines...
  - potatolicious 10y ago
    > "The punch line: the employee flourished as soon as he was fired - his dream had been to join the ministry, but he'd worried about quitting a stable job to do so." I'm generally in favor of firing underperforming employees, but this punchline feels uncomfortably close to ex post facto justification. Lots and lots and lots of people get fired and don't flourish, in fact they drop like a brick and hit rock bottom. While everything turned out for the best this time, I worry about the lesson being imparted here.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      >>Lots and lots and lots of people get fired and don't flourish, in fact they drop like a brick and hit rock bottom. Sure, but speaking from the perspective of the company and everyone else in it, it's better if those low-performers hit rock bottom outside the company, rather than hit rock bottom while employed and bring the rest of the company down.
      - outworlder 10y ago
        Usually, unless the company is really small, they won't drag it down. Unless they are CEOs, which are seldom fired. And get golden parachutes even when they do get fired.
- dismal2 10y ago
  The idea that there is an ideal place for everyone in capitalism and be able to pay for all the costs of day to day life is some kind of libertarian hacker news delusion.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I've never seen that idea around here, where did you?
  - kmonsen 10y ago
    For me it seems like hacker news loves universal basic income, because they understand this might not be true today and even less likely to be true in the future.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      For me, it seems like there are both ultra-capitalist libertarian (of the flavor that opposes any social support, including UBI) and pro-UBI constituencies active in hacker news, as well as others, but that neither viewpoint dominates HN. (Though opponents of those viewpoints, and others, will often describe the view they oppose as dominating HN, perhaps because they are more sensitized to what they oppose.)
    - dismal2 10y ago
      I just think ubi is a panacea when we are really headed towards a cyberpunk dystopia were powerful corporations hold all the cards and the workers are reduced to a form of neo feudalism
    - curun1r 10y ago
      Really? I think HN loves UBI because it presents the opportunity to try to build a company without the worry of having to figure out how to pay rent and put food on the table. It's a lot easier to take risks when you've got money, however small, coming in. When they called for research on UBI, everyone focused on what you're focusing on...the hubris that SV thinks it can automate everyone else's jobs. But the point I mention above is, to me, the more powerful one. Freeing people to follow their passions will enable people to give up their 9-5s without first having to save up. Creating a startup is a giant leap into the unknown with only the hope that you'll land safely. UBI is a parachute in case you miss your landing.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  Netflix total compensation seems to match places like google, apple and facebook, but with a sword damoceles waiting to fire you. That feels like a net negative.
- mathattack 10y ago
  There's a tradeoff of general human capital ("best athlete") versus specific human capital ("best specialist"). I used to be more in the latter camp. Over time I've moved to the former. The system works because the severance is very generous, and it's not considered a career risk to leave Netflix.

by kefka 10y ago

mercer 10y ago

Instinctively and ideologically I mostly oppose the idea of this lack of loyalty toward employees. At the same time, for some reason it bothers me less the way it is presented to work within Netflix. I'm not sure why, though. Maybe it's to do with the fact that there are plenty of jobs in tech right now and Netflix apparently pays very well, enough for a future employee to accept that disadvantage. Partly it's also because of the transparency of it all. Another thing is that it can benefit the employee too, long term. I've worked in many different companies and there were always a bunch of 'holders-on' who held everyone back and didn't even seem happy themselves. I often thought they and the team would be much better off if they found work somewhere else where either they'd feel challenged to develop themselves further, or where their current skills were good enough. I still would not choose to run a company that way myself, but provided that 'performance' is measured in a somewhat accurate way, provided that the compensation offsets this risk, provided that there is honesty about it all, and provided that there are alternative jobs one can find afterwards, well, then I'd at least be curious to see if it works in practice. (and decreasing 'institutional knowledge' is one very big advantage, in my opinion.)

koralatov 10y ago
> Partly it's also because of the transparency of it all. What's transparent about it? The process is totally opaque -- some executive evaluates whether they feel you're meeting their standards, which may or may not be obvious, and then decides to let you go if they feel you aren't. I don't think it could be any less transparent.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  That they fire people rather arbitrarily is being written about in a national publication. So someone applying for a job has a good chance of understanding it going into the process. That's a pretty high degree of transparency about how they do things.
  - koralatov 10y ago
    That's not really what we're talking about when we're talking about 'transparency' her. Just because it's known that something happens doesn't mean it happens in a transparent fashion. Transparency of process is important, too, and required before you can really call something 'transparent'. As it stands, the person making the decision could be doing so for totally arbitrary reasons. It doesn't appear that there's an established process or criteria in place beyond "I don't feel like I'd hire X now" -- the rationale "Because Executive Y says so" is not transparent in the slightest.
    - Programmatic 10y ago
      I think the part that is transparent is that you're not going to build your career and retire at Netflix, you know it's a stint. It may be arbitrary and capricious otherwise, but you know that in advance and can decide if it's worth it. I would not mind being in such an environment for a stint, myself.
      - mindcrime 10y ago
        I think the part that is transparent is that you're not going to build your career and retire at Netflix, you know it's a stint. But anybody who has been paying attention has known that any job is "just a stint" since at least the 90's, if not the 80's. A big part of the Re-engineering[1] push of the 90's involved reducing costs, at least in part by reducing head-count. And before that, you had the 80's LBO[2] craze, which resulted in dramatic layoffs at many companies. As a Gen-X'er who grew up in the 80's, I have never expected to have a life-long career at a single company, and I can't imagine many - if any - of my peers imagining that either. In this regard, there's nothing unique at Netflix. All jobs are essentially "temp" jobs in this day and age. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout
athenot 10y ago
It works for Netflix because they appear to pay above average. So the marketplace can accomodate companies that pay less and tolerate more, as well as ones that are super demanding but pay more. But if the labor market were compressed more like in Europe, all companies could afford that behavior, without having to spend abnomally higher in salaries, and that would be a problem.
- digler999 10y ago
  my experience has been that when employers "pay above average", what they really mean is they pay 1 employee for the work of 1.5 employees. Do you really think the engineering team goes home at 5pm?
  - aaronblohowiak 10y ago
    The later shuttles leave at 5:10, and then we do some emailing and such on the way home...
SyneRyder 10y ago
"I often thought they and the team would be much better off if they found work somewhere else where either they'd feel challenged to develop themselves further, or where their current skills were good enough." This echoes one of the chapters in Fire Someone Today, a book with a seemingly heartless title, written by the CEO of a Bible software company. They had an underperforming employee that everyone liked & no-one wanted to fire, so they moved him through different roles to find something that suited him. After moving him through the entire company with negative results, they finally conceded they had to fire him. The punch line: the employee flourished as soon as he was fired - his dream had been to join the ministry, but he'd worried about quitting a stable job to do so. The rest of the book is pretty good, about 20 anecdotes from running a software business. https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Someone-Today-Surprising-Business/dp/0785212620/ https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Someone-Today-Surprising-Busines...
- potatolicious 10y ago
  > "The punch line: the employee flourished as soon as he was fired - his dream had been to join the ministry, but he'd worried about quitting a stable job to do so." I'm generally in favor of firing underperforming employees, but this punchline feels uncomfortably close to ex post facto justification. Lots and lots and lots of people get fired and don't flourish, in fact they drop like a brick and hit rock bottom. While everything turned out for the best this time, I worry about the lesson being imparted here.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>Lots and lots and lots of people get fired and don't flourish, in fact they drop like a brick and hit rock bottom. Sure, but speaking from the perspective of the company and everyone else in it, it's better if those low-performers hit rock bottom outside the company, rather than hit rock bottom while employed and bring the rest of the company down.
    - outworlder 10y ago
      Usually, unless the company is really small, they won't drag it down. Unless they are CEOs, which are seldom fired. And get golden parachutes even when they do get fired.
dismal2 10y ago
The idea that there is an ideal place for everyone in capitalism and be able to pay for all the costs of day to day life is some kind of libertarian hacker news delusion.
- icebraining 10y ago
  I've never seen that idea around here, where did you?
- kmonsen 10y ago
  For me it seems like hacker news loves universal basic income, because they understand this might not be true today and even less likely to be true in the future.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    For me, it seems like there are both ultra-capitalist libertarian (of the flavor that opposes any social support, including UBI) and pro-UBI constituencies active in hacker news, as well as others, but that neither viewpoint dominates HN. (Though opponents of those viewpoints, and others, will often describe the view they oppose as dominating HN, perhaps because they are more sensitized to what they oppose.)
  - dismal2 10y ago
    I just think ubi is a panacea when we are really headed towards a cyberpunk dystopia were powerful corporations hold all the cards and the workers are reduced to a form of neo feudalism
  - curun1r 10y ago
    Really? I think HN loves UBI because it presents the opportunity to try to build a company without the worry of having to figure out how to pay rent and put food on the table. It's a lot easier to take risks when you've got money, however small, coming in. When they called for research on UBI, everyone focused on what you're focusing on...the hubris that SV thinks it can automate everyone else's jobs. But the point I mention above is, to me, the more powerful one. Freeing people to follow their passions will enable people to give up their 9-5s without first having to save up. Creating a startup is a giant leap into the unknown with only the hope that you'll land safely. UBI is a parachute in case you miss your landing.
mahyarm 10y ago
Netflix total compensation seems to match places like google, apple and facebook, but with a sword damoceles waiting to fire you. That feels like a net negative.
mathattack 10y ago
There's a tradeoff of general human capital ("best athlete") versus specific human capital ("best specialist"). I used to be more in the latter camp. Over time I've moved to the former. The system works because the severance is very generous, and it's not considered a career risk to leave Netflix.