10 ms·

> Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees for performance reasons, not because managers don’t like them Oh how I wish I coul

> Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees for performance reasons, not because managers don’t like them Oh how I wish I could have had that. I've had an experience in the past where I was dismissed because my manager decided he just didn't like me anymore. Although I was the best performing, most senior developer on the team and was doing all the hiring and mentoring of others, it didn't save me. Within two months I went from having a glowing performance review that recommended me for a management role to being summarily dismissed for "attitude."

throwaway4195 8y ago
I had the exact same experience with a well known startup in SF. I got a glowing "Outstanding" review in the previous quarter. My manager left and the new manager who came in took just 15 days (with a single one on one meeting) to decide she din't like me and fired me without offering much of a reason.
- bradknowles 8y ago
  UT Austin was much like that for me. Highest possible ratings from the previous manager, and then the new manager was hired. Technically, I was caught in the campus-wide 10% across-the-board layoffs, but it's very clear why I was made eligible for that list. Funny that it happened to be the same month that I was recovering from surgery to remove my cancerous thyroid gland.
  - artwr 8y ago
    For what it's worth, I am sorry that happened to you. That's terrible.
  - technofiend 8y ago
    Ouch!! That's heartless. Got recruited into a role by a friend who a few months later decided to pack up and go back to his previous company. My gall bladder died and went necrotic nearly killing me. I came back from the hospital to find an email telling me my job had been eliminated.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  I'll never understand US-style at will employment. It just seems so barbaric and arbitrary. Where I'm from the current conservative government just proposed legislation that would make it slightly easier to fire people in small companies (at most dozen employees or so). This caused the left-leaning part of the country to throw a collective hissy-fit, including several political strikes organized by major unions.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    It also means that US employees are able to leave the next day if they want and that company hiring decisions don't have to factor in that it's going to be really really hard to get rid of someone if they don't work out or circumstances change. It allows a lot for flexibility for everyone, with some costs.
    - SeanBoocock 8y ago
      Sure, but those costs are borne disproportionately by employees, and of those by people in lower skill positions.
    - dingaling 8y ago
      Most UK tech companies have an initial six-month 'probationary' contract. If you're a good fit in that period then that is superceded by a permanent contract. So both sides benefit, the company has the initial flexibility to hire and fire and after that the employee gains some assurance that he won't be thrown off the premises arbitrarily.
      - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        That just reinforces our inexorable march down to the US level. When I started most UK tech, and companies in all other industries had an initial one month probation. Very occasionally, usually for the most senior roles, it might be two or three. Six months weighs the balance much too heavily on the employer side I think.
  - taurath 8y ago
ahmedalsudani 8y ago
I can't help but wonder why just about every company has terrible hiring/HR/management practices. You would think that someone out there would fix those problems at their companies and reap the rewards: an effective, highly motivated workforce. The fact that we haven't seen that means either that it's a hard problem to solve, that nobody pays attention to it, or that there is no economic value in working to have "good" practices when it comes to workforce management. ... Or maybe it's good to have your workers living in fear, worrying if they'll be next at the end of your Kafkaesque processes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Oh, one last thing I remembered: a previous coworker of mine raved about how his company treated workers, but the company was later acquired by a bigger player, and the situation changed. Perhaps companies with good practices get absorbed by the "big bad wolves" that have established themselves in the market.
- omegaham 8y ago
  I think the reason is that HR is similar to IT and QA - if they do their job right, it's like they're doing nothing at all. My guess is that "Thank God HR was on top of that problem" is not a common phrase in meetings. Neither is "Wow, HR did a fantastic job creating that job posting, and every single candidate that they've brought in has been at least plausible." If they aren't braindead, you just take them for granted. Systems like that tend to get neglected.
  - halbritt 8y ago
    The role of HR is to shield the company from liability.
    - thwarted 8y ago
      The role of IT and QA is also to shield the company from all kinds of liability: legal, process, financial, failures, continuity, etc.
      - jiveturkey 8y ago
        only incidentally. whereas it is literally HR’s job.
chocolatebunny 8y ago
At my previous job the management not liking you layoff was because "you're not being a team player/difficult to work with". They were never firings because the the company just did massive layoffs every year so you just get rid of the bad apples with the rest of the under-performers when the company downsizes.
ryall 8y ago
You'd think that in any decent company a manager would be held accountable for firings. "They weren't performing, why not? What did you do to assist them? Show us the minutes from your meetings where they outlined why they couldn't meet performance goals and you provided ways to help them" A manager's role is to support their team, any failure to do so should be looked at very carefully as to why they are under-performing. This behaviour needs to continue up the chain to the very top of the company structure.
- macintux 8y ago
  I don’t think most startups feel they have time to mentor. I think most big companies would find that much firing accountability at the all levels uncomfortable.
- aminotaa 8y ago
  The manager's role is to deliver. Managers are given head count to deliver. Managers are assessed on how demanding they are of their direct reports. The general expectation is to ruthlessly cut and replace underperformers. Only attorneys in labor disputes will be asking to show minutes from meetings.
jacobush 8y ago
At Netflix you'd be fired not because your manager didn't like you. You'd be fired because he didn't like your performance. There's a lot of it, alas it's just not the quality we are looking for here...
sleepybrett 8y ago
You'd think that HR would take one look at your performance reviews over time and call the manager on the carpet.

throwaway4195 8y ago

I had the exact same experience with a well known startup in SF. I got a glowing "Outstanding" review in the previous quarter. My manager left and the new manager who came in took just 15 days (with a single one on one meeting) to decide she din't like me and fired me without offering much of a reason.

bradknowles 8y ago
UT Austin was much like that for me. Highest possible ratings from the previous manager, and then the new manager was hired. Technically, I was caught in the campus-wide 10% across-the-board layoffs, but it's very clear why I was made eligible for that list. Funny that it happened to be the same month that I was recovering from surgery to remove my cancerous thyroid gland.
- artwr 8y ago
  For what it's worth, I am sorry that happened to you. That's terrible.
- technofiend 8y ago
  Ouch!! That's heartless. Got recruited into a role by a friend who a few months later decided to pack up and go back to his previous company. My gall bladder died and went necrotic nearly killing me. I came back from the hospital to find an email telling me my job had been eliminated.
Sharlin 8y ago
I'll never understand US-style at will employment. It just seems so barbaric and arbitrary. Where I'm from the current conservative government just proposed legislation that would make it slightly easier to fire people in small companies (at most dozen employees or so). This caused the left-leaning part of the country to throw a collective hissy-fit, including several political strikes organized by major unions.
- ghaff 8y ago
  It also means that US employees are able to leave the next day if they want and that company hiring decisions don't have to factor in that it's going to be really really hard to get rid of someone if they don't work out or circumstances change. It allows a lot for flexibility for everyone, with some costs.
  - SeanBoocock 8y ago
    Sure, but those costs are borne disproportionately by employees, and of those by people in lower skill positions.
  - dingaling 8y ago
    Most UK tech companies have an initial six-month 'probationary' contract. If you're a good fit in that period then that is superceded by a permanent contract. So both sides benefit, the company has the initial flexibility to hire and fire and after that the employee gains some assurance that he won't be thrown off the premises arbitrarily.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      That just reinforces our inexorable march down to the US level. When I started most UK tech, and companies in all other industries had an initial one month probation. Very occasionally, usually for the most senior roles, it might be two or three. Six months weighs the balance much too heavily on the employer side I think.
- taurath 8y ago

ahmedalsudani 8y ago

I can't help but wonder why just about every company has terrible hiring/HR/management practices. You would think that someone out there would fix those problems at their companies and reap the rewards: an effective, highly motivated workforce. The fact that we haven't seen that means either that it's a hard problem to solve, that nobody pays attention to it, or that there is no economic value in working to have "good" practices when it comes to workforce management. ... Or maybe it's good to have your workers living in fear, worrying if they'll be next at the end of your Kafkaesque processes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Oh, one last thing I remembered: a previous coworker of mine raved about how his company treated workers, but the company was later acquired by a bigger player, and the situation changed. Perhaps companies with good practices get absorbed by the "big bad wolves" that have established themselves in the market.

omegaham 8y ago
I think the reason is that HR is similar to IT and QA - if they do their job right, it's like they're doing nothing at all. My guess is that "Thank God HR was on top of that problem" is not a common phrase in meetings. Neither is "Wow, HR did a fantastic job creating that job posting, and every single candidate that they've brought in has been at least plausible." If they aren't braindead, you just take them for granted. Systems like that tend to get neglected.
- halbritt 8y ago
  The role of HR is to shield the company from liability.
  - thwarted 8y ago
    The role of IT and QA is also to shield the company from all kinds of liability: legal, process, financial, failures, continuity, etc.
    - jiveturkey 8y ago
      only incidentally. whereas it is literally HR’s job.

chocolatebunny 8y ago

At my previous job the management not liking you layoff was because "you're not being a team player/difficult to work with". They were never firings because the the company just did massive layoffs every year so you just get rid of the bad apples with the rest of the under-performers when the company downsizes.

ryall 8y ago

You'd think that in any decent company a manager would be held accountable for firings. "They weren't performing, why not? What did you do to assist them? Show us the minutes from your meetings where they outlined why they couldn't meet performance goals and you provided ways to help them" A manager's role is to support their team, any failure to do so should be looked at very carefully as to why they are under-performing. This behaviour needs to continue up the chain to the very top of the company structure.

macintux 8y ago
I don’t think most startups feel they have time to mentor. I think most big companies would find that much firing accountability at the all levels uncomfortable.
aminotaa 8y ago
The manager's role is to deliver. Managers are given head count to deliver. Managers are assessed on how demanding they are of their direct reports. The general expectation is to ruthlessly cut and replace underperformers. Only attorneys in labor disputes will be asking to show minutes from meetings.

jacobush 8y ago

At Netflix you'd be fired not because your manager didn't like you. You'd be fired because he didn't like your performance. There's a lot of it, alas it's just not the quality we are looking for here...

sleepybrett 8y ago

You'd think that HR would take one look at your performance reviews over time and call the manager on the carpet.