7 ms·

> Many employees say they see the keeper test as a guise for ordinary workplace politics while some managers say they feel pressure to fire people or risk looki

> Many employees say they see the keeper test as a guise for ordinary workplace politics while some managers say they feel pressure to fire people or risk looking soft. Postmortem emails and meetings explaining why people got fired are viewed by some employees as awkward and theatrical when the audiences can be dozens or even hundreds of people. So every employee gets to be badmouthed in front of as many as hundreds of former co-workers, as Netflix's special parting gift? What a treat! > Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees for performance reasons So Netflix is actively propagating the obvious myth that all terminations are due to poor performance. Not because the nature of the project / technology changed, not because the chemistry between the fired person and key players like his supervisor has unfortunately gone south... No, it is always poor performance. Good luck getting your next job! And to help you on your way out, we'll make sure every single one of your former co-worker hears your former supervisor talking trash about you in very blunt terms. You know, just to make it easier for these same co-workers to provide references to your prospective next employers. Have we said good luck already...? (Netflix employees, why do you accept this?)

strangerlands 8y ago
> Netflix employees, why do you accept this? Money, of course. Plus, people working in tech and making very good money are not known for "spine-straightness".
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > Money, of course. If they are such solid performers, they can get jobs in other FAANGs who pay just as well. Netflix pays well, but does it pay so much better that I should put up with this BS? I doubt. In fact, by keeping up this abusive charade, Netflix is guaranteeing that many of the best candidates will never apply. So my guess would be that their employees aren't the best, but perhaps the best candidates willing to accept this BS.
  - taurath 8y ago
    > Netflix pays well, but does it pay so much better that I should put up with this BS? To the FAANG employee with a PHD who's been "hanging out" making widgets a 1st year programmer could build, the appeal I think is to invite people who want to show off the fire in their belly to do something. And then they make 1st year programmer widgets, but with LOTS of passion and arguments and being told they can be fired at any moment.
    - sleepybrett 8y ago
      No one at netflix is changing the world.
  - im_down_w_otp 8y ago
    This is absolutely untrue. The pay for Senior & Principal level positions at Netflix are $350k-$500k+ base compensation. The same shape of thing at Apple, Facebook, etc. would be about half that in many cases. Netflix goes out of its way to pay top-of-market and often by a significant margin.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      > The pay for Senior & Principal level positions at Netflix are $350k-$500k+ base compensation. The same shape of thing at Apple, Facebook, etc. would be about half that in many cases. A Principal Engineer at FB would make "half" of $350-500k in compensation? Pure nonsense. Moreover, it seems like Netflix pays more cash and less equity, so some folks on this thread love to talk about "base compensation", "salary", etc. What really matters is total comp, and from what I know, Netflix is about on par with the rest of FAANG. I don't know much about them directly, but I do know folks who work for FAANGs very close to Los Gatos, and would certainly be inteested in moving if Netflix paid more "by a significant margin".
      - gms 8y ago
        Netflix is not on par. They do pay more than the rest can match.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway359087 8y ago
Because Netflix pays 360k a year plus benefits. It’s a shit place to work if you don’t fit the exact culture though, which is pretty brash and confrontational
- dunpeal 8y ago
  You can get similar comp at Google and Facebook, to name just two examples. Why should I choose Netflix if I can get the same pay there, minus the BS? Also, I won't have to live in Los Gatos.
  - throwaway359087 8y ago
    Don’t choose them. It sucks I just said that. But working at Google or Facebook is totally different. Netflix has a couple hundred engineers. They aren’t involved in selling ad funded content. I wouldn’t want to work at google or facebook
    - obstacle1 8y ago
      Netflix had 5,700 employees in 2017, and only a 'couple hundred' of those were engineers?
      - throwaway359087 8y ago
        Yes
        jedberg 8y ago
        I think your stats are off. When I left Netflix in 2015, we already had 1000+ engineers. By 2017 it was probably closer to 2000.
        turtlecloud 8y ago
        So if 2000 eng, they are paying 300k on avg on the low end. That is like 600 mil/ year???? Omg
abritinthebay 8y ago
> So every employee gets to be badmouthed in front of as many as hundreds of former co-workers, as Netflix's special parting gift? Well no. It’s usually very positive about them and generally sad that things couldn’t be made to work. The point is not that they were bad - the idea is Netflix wouldn’t have hired them if that were so! It’s that it just wasn’t a good fit due to misalignment of goals. Perhaps someone doesn’t want to change or just keeps behaving in a way that they’ve been asked not to. I’ve read a few departure emails in my time at Netflix and none of them - even the one with the C level exec who is mentioned in the article - were “badmouthing” anyone. If anything they’re quite positive about the person tbh.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > It’s that it just wasn’t a good fit due to misalignment of goals. That's not what Netflix's own spokesman say: > Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees for performance reasons Only "performance reasons", not "misalignment of goals". > Perhaps someone doesn’t want to change or just keeps behaving in a way that they’ve been asked not to. Saying someone "just keeps behaving in a way that they’ve been asked not to" is a very negative thing to say. As a hiring managing, hearing that about a candidate would cause me not to hire them. > It’s usually very positive about them Something is very distorted if you think saying about someone that he "just keeps behaving in a way that they’ve been asked not to" and similar stuff that make a person unemployable is "very positive about them". And once more, this contradicts everything else in the article. You can't have your cake and eat it, too: if Netflix is saying (through it's spokesman and multiple other execs in the article) that firing is always due to performance reason, then that's not a "very positive" statement about the person being fired. It's actually a very negative statement.
  - abritinthebay 8y ago
    If someone isn’t performing in their role the way the company wants (this may be due to many things, interests, changing role requirements, etc. Doesn’t say anything about the skill of the person involved) and doesn’t want to change that then that is a misalignment of goals. That is also a performance problem. That you would frame that as exclusively personally negative says more about your judgement than it says about Netflix culture tbh. Also the fact that I’m contradicting the article (and mostly just the writers inferences rather than the substantive content I might add) and I work there may might be a clue about the accuracy of the article.
rpdillon 8y ago
It's interesting to me that the discussions in this thread treat performance and ability to work with others as distinct. In a team-based work environment, one's ability to work effectively with others is a critical aspect of performance. If an employee engages in behavior that frustrates, annoys, or confuses others, performance suffers, particularly in any role above entry level, where leadership, communication, and mentoring ability are part of the job description. On the other hand, I find it very strange that the article describes a sort of 'post-mortem email' that goes out to dozens of people that describes the failings of the (now-departed) employee. That seems like it would cause more problems than it would solve.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > If an employee engages in behavior that frustrates, annoys, or confuses others, performance suffers, particularly in any role above entry level, where leadership, communication, and mentoring ability are part of the job description." I don't see arguments in the thread that being generally insufferable at work is not a performance problem. Most of the comments are about the fact that you can easily lose your job for being disliked arbitrarily by exactly one person: your direct superior. This can happen to people who are good performers and team players. One obvious example: professional differences, where an employees generally disagrees with his superior's approach. None of them is necessarily wrong, they just have different professional styles. One less benign example: the manager is incompetent, the employee is a top performer, so the manager is intimidated and tries to push the employee out.
  - smueller1234 8y ago
    There's a moderately good cure for the subject-to-managers-whim problem. Have a policy that in any case of performance issues, the person with the bad ratings gets to move to a different area in the company with as clean a slate as possible without being naive. Ideally away from the management chain up to and including the director. Then have HR reevaluate after 3-6 months. It's only moderately good because it's never (and shouldn't quite be depending on the cause of poor performance) a completely clean slate and because it is very expensive to execute. I've seen a number of folks who has relationship problems due to their environment be salvaged as perfectly good employees this way. I've seen others who left with the realization that maybe it wasn't JUST the manager after all and hopefully growing from that experience. And of course, I've seen people think it's all a giant conspiracy against them as well.
type_enthusiast 8y ago
> So every employee gets to be badmouthed in front of as many as hundreds of former co-workers, as Netflix's special parting gift? This isn't what happens, as far as I've seen. These e-mails/meetings don't badmouth people or imply that they weren't competent. They give context around specific ways in which the person wasn't meeting expectations (as well as outlining out the ways in which the person was positively contributing). IME it's valuable context and isn't an assault on anyone's dignity (or "trash talking") like you're suggesting.
- strangerlands 8y ago
  They largely badmouth people. I have seen very harsh things written after the employee was fired, with the employee having no opportunity to answer. Harsher for ICs than for Director and up – cowardice is always cheap. You cannot write that that person is not at the level of their peers, that she was not able to communicate with the stakeholders in a company-wide email, with no opportunity for the fired person to comment. In my book, that is all very unfair. I hope you are not used to that behavior, either actively or passively.
notyourday 8y ago
> (Netflix employees, why do you accept this?) Let me take a stab at this: money is good.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  >> (Netflix employees, why do you accept this?) > Let me take a stab at this: money is good. Better than everywhere else, including other FAANGs, where you don't have to tolerate such policies?
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    If you want cash it is. Netflix salaries are generally $350k+. They only hire seniors, but that can mean 4-5 years of experience. Not even Google pays that kind of comp in salary.
    - chrisweekly 8y ago
      "not even Google pays that kind of comp in salary" -- maybe not a deliberate equovocation, but total comp ("salary" plus stock) at google is definitely at or above that range.
      - dunpeal 8y ago
        Netflix apologists in this thread love to use words like "salary" and "cash", then compare against the base salary of other FAANGs. Effectively what they're doing is comparing total comp at Netflix with base salary at other FAANGs, which is very misleading.
        Avshalom 8y ago
        I don't know shit about Netflix vs Googles comp but there is a lot to be said for cash: there's no vesting period ; it's dependable, there's no weird dips because an investing firm got spooked; it's liquid, you can spend it at the bar tonight, right now; taxes are straight forward. That said -- I mean this with all sincerity -- it does my commie heart good to see that absolutely no in this thread is buying Netflix's bullshit.

strangerlands 8y ago

> Netflix employees, why do you accept this? Money, of course. Plus, people working in tech and making very good money are not known for "spine-straightness".

dunpeal 8y ago
> Money, of course. If they are such solid performers, they can get jobs in other FAANGs who pay just as well. Netflix pays well, but does it pay so much better that I should put up with this BS? I doubt. In fact, by keeping up this abusive charade, Netflix is guaranteeing that many of the best candidates will never apply. So my guess would be that their employees aren't the best, but perhaps the best candidates willing to accept this BS.
- taurath 8y ago
  > Netflix pays well, but does it pay so much better that I should put up with this BS? To the FAANG employee with a PHD who's been "hanging out" making widgets a 1st year programmer could build, the appeal I think is to invite people who want to show off the fire in their belly to do something. And then they make 1st year programmer widgets, but with LOTS of passion and arguments and being told they can be fired at any moment.
  - sleepybrett 8y ago
    No one at netflix is changing the world.
- im_down_w_otp 8y ago
  This is absolutely untrue. The pay for Senior & Principal level positions at Netflix are $350k-$500k+ base compensation. The same shape of thing at Apple, Facebook, etc. would be about half that in many cases. Netflix goes out of its way to pay top-of-market and often by a significant margin.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    > The pay for Senior & Principal level positions at Netflix are $350k-$500k+ base compensation. The same shape of thing at Apple, Facebook, etc. would be about half that in many cases. A Principal Engineer at FB would make "half" of $350-500k in compensation? Pure nonsense. Moreover, it seems like Netflix pays more cash and less equity, so some folks on this thread love to talk about "base compensation", "salary", etc. What really matters is total comp, and from what I know, Netflix is about on par with the rest of FAANG. I don't know much about them directly, but I do know folks who work for FAANGs very close to Los Gatos, and would certainly be inteested in moving if Netflix paid more "by a significant margin".
    - gms 8y ago
      Netflix is not on par. They do pay more than the rest can match.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

throwaway359087 8y ago

Because Netflix pays 360k a year plus benefits. It’s a shit place to work if you don’t fit the exact culture though, which is pretty brash and confrontational

dunpeal 8y ago
You can get similar comp at Google and Facebook, to name just two examples. Why should I choose Netflix if I can get the same pay there, minus the BS? Also, I won't have to live in Los Gatos.
- throwaway359087 8y ago
  Don’t choose them. It sucks I just said that. But working at Google or Facebook is totally different. Netflix has a couple hundred engineers. They aren’t involved in selling ad funded content. I wouldn’t want to work at google or facebook
  - obstacle1 8y ago
    Netflix had 5,700 employees in 2017, and only a 'couple hundred' of those were engineers?
    - throwaway359087 8y ago
      Yes
      - jedberg 8y ago
        I think your stats are off. When I left Netflix in 2015, we already had 1000+ engineers. By 2017 it was probably closer to 2000.
        turtlecloud 8y ago
        So if 2000 eng, they are paying 300k on avg on the low end. That is like 600 mil/ year???? Omg

abritinthebay 8y ago

> So every employee gets to be badmouthed in front of as many as hundreds of former co-workers, as Netflix's special parting gift? Well no. It’s usually very positive about them and generally sad that things couldn’t be made to work. The point is not that they were bad - the idea is Netflix wouldn’t have hired them if that were so! It’s that it just wasn’t a good fit due to misalignment of goals. Perhaps someone doesn’t want to change or just keeps behaving in a way that they’ve been asked not to. I’ve read a few departure emails in my time at Netflix and none of them - even the one with the C level exec who is mentioned in the article - were “badmouthing” anyone. If anything they’re quite positive about the person tbh.

dunpeal 8y ago
> It’s that it just wasn’t a good fit due to misalignment of goals. That's not what Netflix's own spokesman say: > Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees for performance reasons Only "performance reasons", not "misalignment of goals". > Perhaps someone doesn’t want to change or just keeps behaving in a way that they’ve been asked not to. Saying someone "just keeps behaving in a way that they’ve been asked not to" is a very negative thing to say. As a hiring managing, hearing that about a candidate would cause me not to hire them. > It’s usually very positive about them Something is very distorted if you think saying about someone that he "just keeps behaving in a way that they’ve been asked not to" and similar stuff that make a person unemployable is "very positive about them". And once more, this contradicts everything else in the article. You can't have your cake and eat it, too: if Netflix is saying (through it's spokesman and multiple other execs in the article) that firing is always due to performance reason, then that's not a "very positive" statement about the person being fired. It's actually a very negative statement.
- abritinthebay 8y ago
  If someone isn’t performing in their role the way the company wants (this may be due to many things, interests, changing role requirements, etc. Doesn’t say anything about the skill of the person involved) and doesn’t want to change that then that is a misalignment of goals. That is also a performance problem. That you would frame that as exclusively personally negative says more about your judgement than it says about Netflix culture tbh. Also the fact that I’m contradicting the article (and mostly just the writers inferences rather than the substantive content I might add) and I work there may might be a clue about the accuracy of the article.

rpdillon 8y ago

It's interesting to me that the discussions in this thread treat performance and ability to work with others as distinct. In a team-based work environment, one's ability to work effectively with others is a critical aspect of performance. If an employee engages in behavior that frustrates, annoys, or confuses others, performance suffers, particularly in any role above entry level, where leadership, communication, and mentoring ability are part of the job description. On the other hand, I find it very strange that the article describes a sort of 'post-mortem email' that goes out to dozens of people that describes the failings of the (now-departed) employee. That seems like it would cause more problems than it would solve.

dunpeal 8y ago
> If an employee engages in behavior that frustrates, annoys, or confuses others, performance suffers, particularly in any role above entry level, where leadership, communication, and mentoring ability are part of the job description." I don't see arguments in the thread that being generally insufferable at work is not a performance problem. Most of the comments are about the fact that you can easily lose your job for being disliked arbitrarily by exactly one person: your direct superior. This can happen to people who are good performers and team players. One obvious example: professional differences, where an employees generally disagrees with his superior's approach. None of them is necessarily wrong, they just have different professional styles. One less benign example: the manager is incompetent, the employee is a top performer, so the manager is intimidated and tries to push the employee out.
- smueller1234 8y ago
  There's a moderately good cure for the subject-to-managers-whim problem. Have a policy that in any case of performance issues, the person with the bad ratings gets to move to a different area in the company with as clean a slate as possible without being naive. Ideally away from the management chain up to and including the director. Then have HR reevaluate after 3-6 months. It's only moderately good because it's never (and shouldn't quite be depending on the cause of poor performance) a completely clean slate and because it is very expensive to execute. I've seen a number of folks who has relationship problems due to their environment be salvaged as perfectly good employees this way. I've seen others who left with the realization that maybe it wasn't JUST the manager after all and hopefully growing from that experience. And of course, I've seen people think it's all a giant conspiracy against them as well.

type_enthusiast 8y ago

> So every employee gets to be badmouthed in front of as many as hundreds of former co-workers, as Netflix's special parting gift? This isn't what happens, as far as I've seen. These e-mails/meetings don't badmouth people or imply that they weren't competent. They give context around specific ways in which the person wasn't meeting expectations (as well as outlining out the ways in which the person was positively contributing). IME it's valuable context and isn't an assault on anyone's dignity (or "trash talking") like you're suggesting.

strangerlands 8y ago
They largely badmouth people. I have seen very harsh things written after the employee was fired, with the employee having no opportunity to answer. Harsher for ICs than for Director and up – cowardice is always cheap. You cannot write that that person is not at the level of their peers, that she was not able to communicate with the stakeholders in a company-wide email, with no opportunity for the fired person to comment. In my book, that is all very unfair. I hope you are not used to that behavior, either actively or passively.

notyourday 8y ago

> (Netflix employees, why do you accept this?) Let me take a stab at this: money is good.

dunpeal 8y ago
>> (Netflix employees, why do you accept this?) > Let me take a stab at this: money is good. Better than everywhere else, including other FAANGs, where you don't have to tolerate such policies?
- jhall1468 8y ago
  If you want cash it is. Netflix salaries are generally $350k+. They only hire seniors, but that can mean 4-5 years of experience. Not even Google pays that kind of comp in salary.
  - chrisweekly 8y ago
    "not even Google pays that kind of comp in salary" -- maybe not a deliberate equovocation, but total comp ("salary" plus stock) at google is definitely at or above that range.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      Netflix apologists in this thread love to use words like "salary" and "cash", then compare against the base salary of other FAANGs. Effectively what they're doing is comparing total comp at Netflix with base salary at other FAANGs, which is very misleading.
      - Avshalom 8y ago
        I don't know shit about Netflix vs Googles comp but there is a lot to be said for cash: there's no vesting period ; it's dependable, there's no weird dips because an investing firm got spooked; it's liquid, you can spend it at the bar tonight, right now; taxes are straight forward. That said -- I mean this with all sincerity -- it does my commie heart good to see that absolutely no in this thread is buying Netflix's bullshit.