7 ms·

Working at Netflix Sounds Like Hell

74 points by mojoe 8y ago

booleandilemma 8y ago
I like to work for a company that’s fun and stable, not one that sounds like it could be a faction in Divergent.
ymlaree 8y ago
Netflix is following FB tracks it seems, 1st degrade the user experience, then poor company ethics surface. Soon we'll need food like "humane" labels in tech.. [edit : user not customer]
- taneq 8y ago
  What did the user experience used to be like, if the current version is 'degraded'? We only just got Netflix but it seems pretty slick and well-thought-out.
  - addicted 8y ago
    Auto play video trailers. Star ratings are almost invisible. The currrnt Betflix percentage ratings have almost no association with reality and once again seem to exist to promote Netflix shows. It’s harder to find an episode that I stopped watching midway the previous night, because Netflix is promoting its own shows. Non Netflix catalog is buried deep. I’m not sure if this is because they simply don’t have much Non Netfkix content anymore. Movies are hard to find. Again, this could be a content issue. The UI is slick. It’s also simply geared towards making you zombie watch Netfkix branded shows.
  - mediumdeviation 8y ago
    I don't know what it was like before, but when I signed up for it after Netflix went international in 2016, and my first reaction is: this is it? Using Netflix feels like giving up control, over both the viewing experience and the recommendation system. The recommendation system that Netflix poured millions into developing, with hyperoptimizations down to the thumbnails you see? I can't get it to stop recommending me shows I don't want to see. I can't pick the genres I want to show up on the homepage. The automated genre generation/clustering algorithm occasionally generates hilariously poor results. I can't leave my mouse over any thumbnail for a few seconds to read the synopsis because the trailer will automatically start playing. Another example: No control over stream quality. I'm fine with waiting 30 seconds for the higher quality version to buffer, but Netflix forces me to watch the first 30 seconds in glorious 360p with sharp edges and features on actor's faces smudged out of existence. There's no way to change this setting, which exists on every video player I've seen since before YouTube existed.
  - iron0013 8y ago
    Those who have been subscribed for a long time know that the content selection is abysmal compared to what it was in the past. A long time ago, I remember feeling surprised when they didn't have something specific I wanted to see; now I am surprised when they DO have something specific I want to see.
    - JBlue42 8y ago
      That and there were things that, yes, might've taken a little time to maintain, but at least gave it a 'face' outside of normal corporate BS such as being able to share stuff with friends on there. Also, star ratings going away, I think reviews are gone now too, as well as the ability to dismiss things you aren't interested in the past (I think that disappeared a few years ago). The UI and findability sucks if you're on a PC but is fine if you're on a big screen tv (which is the direction I assume it's been aimed in, as well as big buttons for touch screen or visibility). When I was subscribed, I would use a third party website like instantwatcher to easily sort and search what so I could browse quickly. Recommendations and the whatever algorithms they're using now aren't very useful (maybe coming full circle on the limited content leading to limited choice).
- icebraining 8y ago
  FB has been accused of poor ethics since the start. They were barely three years old when they launched Beacon[1], to much criticism and even lawsuits. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Beacon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Beacon
CPLX 8y ago
The big question, of course, is does Netflix succeed because of, or in spite of, this policy.
- startupdiscuss 8y ago
  Yes, or is there a version of this policy -- say remove very poor performers from time to time -- that is effective without having to fetishize being "tough"
  - smt88 8y ago
    The idea of removing the lowest performers, regardless of their ability, is a business idea from I believe the Jack Welch era at GE. In my management classes at business school, it's taught as a cautionary tale of unintended consequences and bad management. So this policy is a well-explored bad idea from decades ago, and it seems typical of Silicon Valley to arrogant reinvent a wheel without looking at cautionary tales from the past.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      Exactly. Most people cannot even tell you how to measure a programmer's performance. But we're comfortable with firing the "lowest performing" developers? Lowest performing by what metric? Honestly these "get rid of poor performance" policies are just abused to remove people who others have a personal dislike for, or similarly those who don't make enough friends to game the system. Plus whose to say that even if we could measure performance, that it wouldn't be down to externalities outside of the individual's control (e.g. poor manager, poor team culture, bad project requirements, poorly written/documented legacy system they need to integrate with, etc).
      - smt88 8y ago
        To put this idea another way: good managers are humans, and exceptional humans aren't scalable. To solve that problem, companies try to deploy algorithms (via spreadsheets or software) that do scale, but end up being terrible managers.
objektif 8y ago
I guess people still stick around because of the stock price performance.
- kakaorka 8y ago
  Isn't Netflix's compensation to employees all cash?
  - laixintao 8y ago
    No, I actually read an article saied that, you can choose how much do you want to stick your profit to the company, AKA, you can choose how many proportion do you want to get paied by cach or stock.
    - strangerlands 8y ago
      It is wrong and it is very unlikely that you read it in an article, since it is not a secret. There are no stocks, it is all cash for everybody, at least below the C-suite. You can use up to 100% of your salary to buy stock options at 40% of current value. The options are delivered each month and vest immediately. There is a huge difference between shares and stock options.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - HillaryBriss 8y ago
        if someone invests 100% of their salary in NFLX, do they get a better performance review?
        strangerlands 8y ago
        There are no performance reviews at Netflix.
  - hatred 8y ago
claydavisss 8y ago
I had a Netflix offer this year I declined (yes, people decline Netflix now and then) The salary was eye-popping...$400k. That's just to be a senior developer. There were RSUs on top of this so total comp was probably $500k. That's crazy! I knew if I joined I would be terminated but that didn't bother me...the salary was crazy and apparently the goodbye package is also generous. I suppose it's sort of nuts to know you will be fired from day one though. In fairness they make sure you understand what you are getting in to. My future manager even phoned me on a Saturday to make sure I understood. So I have respect for them When the next recession hits, working in tech will get worse and even the monster salaries will go away. Almost no one here has had to experience a real drop in demand for developers
- startupdiscuss 8y ago
  Questions: 1. How did you know you would be terminated? 2. How long do you estimate you would have lasted before this expected termination? 3. If the expected termination did not bother you, why did you refuse the job?
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    1. I just know I couldn't keep up the sprint...I am older with a family. 2. Hopefully long enough to get a good severance package 3. Had another competing offer that had some useful benefits and seemed like a better fit for my skills
- akras14 8y ago
  400k??? This seems insanely high. Are you one of a kind specialist of sort? I find it hard to believe that regular engineer, even in the prime of his career can expect such high salary.
  - strangerlands 8y ago
    It is very common at Netflix.
    - 8y ago
huffmsa 8y ago
Sounds like being on a sports team at a high level. It's not for you, then it's not for you. It's business, not personal.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tluyben2 8y ago
  > Sounds like being on a sports team at a high level. In the sports that doesn't pay too much (for most people working at Netflix) even though you are in the top of the world. With the high level sports you get some kind of satisfaction that you got further than anyone (or some other reason beyond money) and not for the money; most people at Netflix probably work there for the money.
  - huffmsa 8y ago
    But if you make it at Netflix for more that 6 months you're probably a stud and can take your skills anywhere. You are at the top of your game. Working with video at large scale is tough man.
    - kamaal 8y ago
      >>Working with video at large scale is tough man. The question of course is how much staff works on video tech. Even at a company like Google, most people are not working on Google search. There are teams that do all kinds of work behind the scenes to make this happen. Like Build teams, SRE, QR DevOps etc. The tech part is hard, but is largely solved. AWS has today made it easy to play the scale game. The unsolved riddle there is affordability not tech. That's the whole point behind Amazon Prime anyway. If Netflix was using their infrastructure to be successful, they might as well have done it themselves and they have. Another big part about these companies is they oversell the role of technology, and the role of tech people in their success. Content is way important a thing for these companies than tech will ever be. Interesting content to consume is what keeps these people in the game. There is a reason why some thing like New York Times is still around. And they are not even a tech company.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
detaro 8y ago
This article reports on what another publication wrote. The original has a discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18304329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18304329
shroom 8y ago
Stories I’ve hear from friends to my family who worked at Netflix made me cringe. Regular meetings where everyone at the meeting have to do presentations about their own recent work at the company and basically have to present why they should stay instead of the ”other guy” who will be fired. No rest with constant fear of being fired or the alternative if you ”make it” is constant preasure of performaning better than other teams. This breeds a backstabbing culture for sure. edit spelling
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  it's interesting to put this into the larger context of "the US needs more programmers and STEM grads." if that is true, how does Netflix find additional people to hire? how does it survive in a competitive labor market when it treats employees in this way?
  - wishinghand 8y ago
    Same as Amazon. They offer a great resume builder but are notoriously toxic to work at.
    - yourstruly33 8y ago
      Not true for every team. As in Microsoft. As in Apple. As in Google. Amazon has great teams and supersmart people. If you're unlucky you end up in a crappy team. Since there are lots and lots, it's a luck-driven process.
  - pixelperfect 8y ago
    "the US needs more programmers and STEM grads" can always mean "we wish we could hire programmers for $45,000 a year, but due to supply and demand we have to pay them more than that"
    - HillaryBriss 8y ago
      yes. i agree. and, just as paying well attracts workers, supportive/interesting/personal-growth-oriented/comfortable working conditions attract workers. but I gather Netflix doesn't want to take advantage of that strategy. OTOH, could it be that Netflix's management approach actually squeezes more performance out of the very same talent pool every other company has to draw from? is Netflix on to something?
lifeisstillgood 8y ago
"""One employee expressed the feeling that they live in fear of being fired every day at an executive meeting. A vice president named Karen Barragan was said to have responded: “Good, because fear drives you.” """ isn't this normal (for contractors?) i mean it is terrible (armies whose job is to kill people put a pot of effort into avoiding just such feelings) I do wonder why businesses so easily follow this route.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > fear drives you maybe it's interesting here that, in the last couple of days on HN, we've seen several stories to the effect that long-term chronic stress is literally damaging people's brains. given that, i wonder how a Netflix competitor might exploit the defects in this hiring/firing strategy.
  - snovv_crash 8y ago
    Exactly my thoughts. In fact, from what I've seen companies where people lead "from the front", ie. by example, have much higher productivity and better retention of top performers than companies where the management goes around threatening people if they don't perform.
SigmundA 8y ago
CEO Reed Hastings is described as a dedicated adherent to the culture and several former employees said he is “unencumbered by emotion”—in a good way. Is this not the definition of a psychopath? This really does sound like hell to me. Then again a lot of modern corporate culture especially in tech seems to be moving toward this type of hell. Basically a form of social Darwinism. Life and more specifically happiness is not efficient. Maximizing profit and growth and performance might work better unencumbered by emotions, survival of only the fittest, but does that lead to happiness?
- bjhoops1 8y ago
  It does for shareholders, the only people who matter in a capitalist economy. The only people at all, really, everyone else is just a resource to be maximally extracted from.
- xivzgrev 8y ago
  There are many parts to being diagnosed a psychopath. I don't think Reed fits. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindmelding/201301/what-is-psychopath-0 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindmelding/201301/w...
- austenallred 8y ago
  Or a Stoic?
  - strangerlands 8y ago
    Stoic maybe if the same rules applied to him, but it is not the case, they apply to everyone except himself. Maybe it is just me, but I don't like when people apply harsh rules for everyone except themselves. Cult or dictatorship come to mind.
    - beatgammit 8y ago
      When you're the owner/manager of something, you get to decide how people use the things under your control. It's the same way if you let someone borrow your car or other valuable possession: you'll see rules for how that item can be used (e.g. don't take the Lamborghini off-roading). If that behavior extends outside of things you _should_ control (e.g. you try to control your friends and acquaintances), then it can be considered psychopathic or sociopathic. If you're just trying to minimize harm to things you control, then I'd argue that it's normal. The CEO of a company is very much interested in running things efficiently. Without more information, there's really nothing to suggest this CEO has a mental disorder.
akras14 8y ago
On one hand this seem crazy. On another, every place I worked at was full of free-loaders who did nothing and never got fired. I wonder if things are different at Netflix.
- erikb 8y ago
  I always feel that freeloaders are not hurting me personally, so why harm them? And it's not like they bring nothing to the table, it's just less than an ambitious/motivated person would. Last but not least, and why I think most people take on freeloaders and keep them: If they switch to another company and are motivated there, it's better for them personally, but might also mean more competition on the market. Therefore better have all people slack off in your offices than give the competition the edge. Not sure if I would agree with that strategy but it has some logic at least.
  - BeetleB 8y ago
    >I always feel that freeloaders are not hurting me personally, so why harm them? In my experience, over time, freeloaders tend to become vocal and lobby for policy changes (within the team, not corporatewise) that helps keep them there. I've seen them oppose technically sound decisions because they're not sure they can handle the complexity, or (and more commonly) because it involves skills they don't want to learn. Skills well within their reach if they just tried - some of them had those skills in school and they merely need to get a book and review what they once knew. Generally, if you're a motivated person, but in a team with a significant number of "freeloaders", your ability to raise the bar of the team will be limited. I left my last team because of it.
    - erikb 8y ago
      Ah I see, there's certainly a clear difference between our evaluation. If I see a whole team of freeloaders I blame the management team above them. At least in engineering teams it's super easy to have motivated teams because the people choose this career out of desire for working as engineers. Loads of freeloaders means there is no fruitful ground for motivated people to grow on. So they leave or turn into slackers, and some even might become toxic themselves. I don't blame the potatoes if they don't grow though, but either the weather or the farmer.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
Sounds like a bacchanalia for psychopaths...
sunnyP 8y ago
Their environment seems similar to the movie In Bruges. I wonder if Reed Hastings is so dedicated that he would “Keeper Test” himself.
netheril96 8y ago
Relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15607383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15607383
helen___keller 8y ago
Reminds me of stories about working at Goldman Sachs. I guess that’s fair when Tech has become the 21st century go-to yuppie industry
fouc 8y ago
Sounds a bit like Amazon's work environment?
clarle 8y ago
I'm an ex-Netflix engineer (voluntarily left in March to work on my own company, worked there just under 3 years). I don't know what it's like from the executive or middle management side of things, but from the engineering side of things, I liked the fact that people were transparent about their mistakes and there were always detailed write-ups about any technical incidents. Incident post-mortems were always incredibly good for that reason, and I never felt like my job was on the line if I admitted to messing up somewhere. I liked it a lot there, good work/life balance and never really felt stressed. If anything, I didn't think there was enough interesting work to go around as the company was growing a lot bigger. But as an engineer, I wouldn't mind going back.
xivzgrev 8y ago
This isn't all that surprising. Almost 10 years ago Reed literally published all these tenants in a culture presentation that made the rounds in SV. It very much mentions keeper test. https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/reed2001 https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/reed2001 Now what is interesting are the anecdotes about how it impacts people. People often feel motivated by fear, and sometimes feel shamed, etc.
dba7dba 8y ago
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-psychopaths-australian-study-finds/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-... "The study of 261 senior professionals in the United States found that 21 per cent had clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits. The rate of psychopathy in the general population is about one in a hundred." And I personally think if you examine ceos of highly successful companies, the ratio will be higher than 1 in 5. Sure it's ONE study. But it actually makes sense. You don't get to the top in modern corporate world (especially hyper competitive one like the tech) without being slightly crazy.
kamaal 8y ago
>>CEO Reed Hastings is described as a dedicated adherent to the culture It really isn't culture unless it applies to yourself. Does Mr Hastings hold himself to the same standards himself as does to everybody else? >>Kill or be killed seems to be accepted as a mode of operation. A pathetic excuse for a toxic work environment than anything else. This will lead to non-existent to negligible co-operation inside and across teams. Stealth political projects and alliances to sabotage internal projects. Cartel style power structures, purges and internal power dynamics. You usual ala carte toxic political power play. Of course this happens in all companies. But the speed is low. Here it feels like the CEO derives please pouring a catalyst into a run away chemical reaction. >>It’s also led to culture shock as the company rapidly expands, takes on bigger loads of debt, and faces stiff competition. Based on everything I've read so far. I wouldn't be surprised if Jeff Bezos eats these people for lunch in a few years. Bezos isn't known to be employee friendly either, but he is also not a fool. There is a always a fine line between working hard towards a purpose, and pointless busyness just for the heck of it. >>One executive said he was fired because he did not inform others about another employee’s medical condition out of respect for their privacy. Netflix saw this as not being “forthright with us around a major employee issue.” But Jonathan Friedland, former chief communications officer was a little too forthright and open when transparently talking out issues. He was fired this summer Damned if you do, damned if you don't situations happen in processes where people want to screw you regardless, and not exactly because of the merit of your case. Here the cartel boss seems to maintain early communism-esque purge lists.
azr79 8y ago
A lot of contradicting testimonies in this thread, I don't know what to believe anymore.
dang 8y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18304329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18304329
Shorel 8y ago
I wonder if this model would work better with a little bit of gamification. Let me explain: You get fired for not performing. And the gamification part is you can get hired again in that same company, even same position, let's say, three or six months after you were fired. You get your old salary, benefits everything. And the mental relief that being laid of is not permanent. Then you work different this time, with the experience of having done this job before and the experience of being without a job too. It would benefit Netflix a lot more than firing people in a permanent basis, IMO. And with these ultra high salaries, people would go back there.
- bjhoops1 8y ago
  fry squinting can't tell if ironic or earnest...
youarentryan 8y ago
I really liked working at Netflix, but yeah... puhrty intense culture. Also seems like the Hollywood office is becoming more "Hollywood", which might prove problematic for avoiding all of the dumb mistakes Hollywood people make. With so much attention going to the content side of the biz, I also wonder if top engineers would feel more celebrated at Google, Facebook, or start-ups where their contributions are seen as the primary innovation driver of the business.
- JBlue42 8y ago
  What sort of dumb mistakes? Also, what engineering/technical challenges do you think Netflix still has to resolve? It seems like things are stable and right now the focus is on content growth / ownership, especially in the face of other companies catching up and trying to compete in the streaming space.

74 points by mojoe 8y ago

I like to work for a company that’s fun and stable, not one that sounds like it could be a faction in Divergent.

Netflix is following FB tracks it seems, 1st degrade the user experience, then poor company ethics surface. Soon we'll need food like "humane" labels in tech.. [edit : user not customer]

taneq 8y ago
What did the user experience used to be like, if the current version is 'degraded'? We only just got Netflix but it seems pretty slick and well-thought-out.
- addicted 8y ago
  Auto play video trailers. Star ratings are almost invisible. The currrnt Betflix percentage ratings have almost no association with reality and once again seem to exist to promote Netflix shows. It’s harder to find an episode that I stopped watching midway the previous night, because Netflix is promoting its own shows. Non Netflix catalog is buried deep. I’m not sure if this is because they simply don’t have much Non Netfkix content anymore. Movies are hard to find. Again, this could be a content issue. The UI is slick. It’s also simply geared towards making you zombie watch Netfkix branded shows.
- mediumdeviation 8y ago
  I don't know what it was like before, but when I signed up for it after Netflix went international in 2016, and my first reaction is: this is it? Using Netflix feels like giving up control, over both the viewing experience and the recommendation system. The recommendation system that Netflix poured millions into developing, with hyperoptimizations down to the thumbnails you see? I can't get it to stop recommending me shows I don't want to see. I can't pick the genres I want to show up on the homepage. The automated genre generation/clustering algorithm occasionally generates hilariously poor results. I can't leave my mouse over any thumbnail for a few seconds to read the synopsis because the trailer will automatically start playing. Another example: No control over stream quality. I'm fine with waiting 30 seconds for the higher quality version to buffer, but Netflix forces me to watch the first 30 seconds in glorious 360p with sharp edges and features on actor's faces smudged out of existence. There's no way to change this setting, which exists on every video player I've seen since before YouTube existed.
- iron0013 8y ago
  Those who have been subscribed for a long time know that the content selection is abysmal compared to what it was in the past. A long time ago, I remember feeling surprised when they didn't have something specific I wanted to see; now I am surprised when they DO have something specific I want to see.
  - JBlue42 8y ago
    That and there were things that, yes, might've taken a little time to maintain, but at least gave it a 'face' outside of normal corporate BS such as being able to share stuff with friends on there. Also, star ratings going away, I think reviews are gone now too, as well as the ability to dismiss things you aren't interested in the past (I think that disappeared a few years ago). The UI and findability sucks if you're on a PC but is fine if you're on a big screen tv (which is the direction I assume it's been aimed in, as well as big buttons for touch screen or visibility). When I was subscribed, I would use a third party website like instantwatcher to easily sort and search what so I could browse quickly. Recommendations and the whatever algorithms they're using now aren't very useful (maybe coming full circle on the limited content leading to limited choice).
icebraining 8y ago
FB has been accused of poor ethics since the start. They were barely three years old when they launched Beacon[1], to much criticism and even lawsuits. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Beacon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Beacon

CPLX 8y ago

The big question, of course, is does Netflix succeed because of, or in spite of, this policy.

startupdiscuss 8y ago
Yes, or is there a version of this policy -- say remove very poor performers from time to time -- that is effective without having to fetishize being "tough"
- smt88 8y ago
  The idea of removing the lowest performers, regardless of their ability, is a business idea from I believe the Jack Welch era at GE. In my management classes at business school, it's taught as a cautionary tale of unintended consequences and bad management. So this policy is a well-explored bad idea from decades ago, and it seems typical of Silicon Valley to arrogant reinvent a wheel without looking at cautionary tales from the past.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Exactly. Most people cannot even tell you how to measure a programmer's performance. But we're comfortable with firing the "lowest performing" developers? Lowest performing by what metric? Honestly these "get rid of poor performance" policies are just abused to remove people who others have a personal dislike for, or similarly those who don't make enough friends to game the system. Plus whose to say that even if we could measure performance, that it wouldn't be down to externalities outside of the individual's control (e.g. poor manager, poor team culture, bad project requirements, poorly written/documented legacy system they need to integrate with, etc).
    - smt88 8y ago
      To put this idea another way: good managers are humans, and exceptional humans aren't scalable. To solve that problem, companies try to deploy algorithms (via spreadsheets or software) that do scale, but end up being terrible managers.

objektif 8y ago

I guess people still stick around because of the stock price performance.

kakaorka 8y ago
Isn't Netflix's compensation to employees all cash?
- laixintao 8y ago
  No, I actually read an article saied that, you can choose how much do you want to stick your profit to the company, AKA, you can choose how many proportion do you want to get paied by cach or stock.
  - strangerlands 8y ago
    It is wrong and it is very unlikely that you read it in an article, since it is not a secret. There are no stocks, it is all cash for everybody, at least below the C-suite. You can use up to 100% of your salary to buy stock options at 40% of current value. The options are delivered each month and vest immediately. There is a huge difference between shares and stock options.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - HillaryBriss 8y ago
      if someone invests 100% of their salary in NFLX, do they get a better performance review?
      - strangerlands 8y ago
        There are no performance reviews at Netflix.
- hatred 8y ago

claydavisss 8y ago

I had a Netflix offer this year I declined (yes, people decline Netflix now and then) The salary was eye-popping...$400k. That's just to be a senior developer. There were RSUs on top of this so total comp was probably $500k. That's crazy! I knew if I joined I would be terminated but that didn't bother me...the salary was crazy and apparently the goodbye package is also generous. I suppose it's sort of nuts to know you will be fired from day one though. In fairness they make sure you understand what you are getting in to. My future manager even phoned me on a Saturday to make sure I understood. So I have respect for them When the next recession hits, working in tech will get worse and even the monster salaries will go away. Almost no one here has had to experience a real drop in demand for developers

startupdiscuss 8y ago
Questions: 1. How did you know you would be terminated? 2. How long do you estimate you would have lasted before this expected termination? 3. If the expected termination did not bother you, why did you refuse the job?
- claydavisss 8y ago
  1. I just know I couldn't keep up the sprint...I am older with a family. 2. Hopefully long enough to get a good severance package 3. Had another competing offer that had some useful benefits and seemed like a better fit for my skills
akras14 8y ago
400k??? This seems insanely high. Are you one of a kind specialist of sort? I find it hard to believe that regular engineer, even in the prime of his career can expect such high salary.
- strangerlands 8y ago
  It is very common at Netflix.
  - 8y ago

huffmsa 8y ago

Sounds like being on a sports team at a high level. It's not for you, then it's not for you. It's business, not personal.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tluyben2 8y ago
> Sounds like being on a sports team at a high level. In the sports that doesn't pay too much (for most people working at Netflix) even though you are in the top of the world. With the high level sports you get some kind of satisfaction that you got further than anyone (or some other reason beyond money) and not for the money; most people at Netflix probably work there for the money.
- huffmsa 8y ago
  But if you make it at Netflix for more that 6 months you're probably a stud and can take your skills anywhere. You are at the top of your game. Working with video at large scale is tough man.
  - kamaal 8y ago
    >>Working with video at large scale is tough man. The question of course is how much staff works on video tech. Even at a company like Google, most people are not working on Google search. There are teams that do all kinds of work behind the scenes to make this happen. Like Build teams, SRE, QR DevOps etc. The tech part is hard, but is largely solved. AWS has today made it easy to play the scale game. The unsolved riddle there is affordability not tech. That's the whole point behind Amazon Prime anyway. If Netflix was using their infrastructure to be successful, they might as well have done it themselves and they have. Another big part about these companies is they oversell the role of technology, and the role of tech people in their success. Content is way important a thing for these companies than tech will ever be. Interesting content to consume is what keeps these people in the game. There is a reason why some thing like New York Times is still around. And they are not even a tech company.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

detaro 8y ago

This article reports on what another publication wrote. The original has a discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18304329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18304329

shroom 8y ago

Stories I’ve hear from friends to my family who worked at Netflix made me cringe. Regular meetings where everyone at the meeting have to do presentations about their own recent work at the company and basically have to present why they should stay instead of the ”other guy” who will be fired. No rest with constant fear of being fired or the alternative if you ”make it” is constant preasure of performaning better than other teams. This breeds a backstabbing culture for sure. edit spelling

HillaryBriss 8y ago
it's interesting to put this into the larger context of "the US needs more programmers and STEM grads." if that is true, how does Netflix find additional people to hire? how does it survive in a competitive labor market when it treats employees in this way?
- wishinghand 8y ago
  Same as Amazon. They offer a great resume builder but are notoriously toxic to work at.
  - yourstruly33 8y ago
    Not true for every team. As in Microsoft. As in Apple. As in Google. Amazon has great teams and supersmart people. If you're unlucky you end up in a crappy team. Since there are lots and lots, it's a luck-driven process.
- pixelperfect 8y ago
  "the US needs more programmers and STEM grads" can always mean "we wish we could hire programmers for $45,000 a year, but due to supply and demand we have to pay them more than that"
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    yes. i agree. and, just as paying well attracts workers, supportive/interesting/personal-growth-oriented/comfortable working conditions attract workers. but I gather Netflix doesn't want to take advantage of that strategy. OTOH, could it be that Netflix's management approach actually squeezes more performance out of the very same talent pool every other company has to draw from? is Netflix on to something?

lifeisstillgood 8y ago

"""One employee expressed the feeling that they live in fear of being fired every day at an executive meeting. A vice president named Karen Barragan was said to have responded: “Good, because fear drives you.” """ isn't this normal (for contractors?) i mean it is terrible (armies whose job is to kill people put a pot of effort into avoiding just such feelings) I do wonder why businesses so easily follow this route.

HillaryBriss 8y ago
> fear drives you maybe it's interesting here that, in the last couple of days on HN, we've seen several stories to the effect that long-term chronic stress is literally damaging people's brains. given that, i wonder how a Netflix competitor might exploit the defects in this hiring/firing strategy.
- snovv_crash 8y ago
  Exactly my thoughts. In fact, from what I've seen companies where people lead "from the front", ie. by example, have much higher productivity and better retention of top performers than companies where the management goes around threatening people if they don't perform.

SigmundA 8y ago

CEO Reed Hastings is described as a dedicated adherent to the culture and several former employees said he is “unencumbered by emotion”—in a good way. Is this not the definition of a psychopath? This really does sound like hell to me. Then again a lot of modern corporate culture especially in tech seems to be moving toward this type of hell. Basically a form of social Darwinism. Life and more specifically happiness is not efficient. Maximizing profit and growth and performance might work better unencumbered by emotions, survival of only the fittest, but does that lead to happiness?

bjhoops1 8y ago
It does for shareholders, the only people who matter in a capitalist economy. The only people at all, really, everyone else is just a resource to be maximally extracted from.
xivzgrev 8y ago
There are many parts to being diagnosed a psychopath. I don't think Reed fits. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindmelding/201301/what-is-psychopath-0 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindmelding/201301/w...
austenallred 8y ago
Or a Stoic?
- strangerlands 8y ago
  Stoic maybe if the same rules applied to him, but it is not the case, they apply to everyone except himself. Maybe it is just me, but I don't like when people apply harsh rules for everyone except themselves. Cult or dictatorship come to mind.
  - beatgammit 8y ago
    When you're the owner/manager of something, you get to decide how people use the things under your control. It's the same way if you let someone borrow your car or other valuable possession: you'll see rules for how that item can be used (e.g. don't take the Lamborghini off-roading). If that behavior extends outside of things you _should_ control (e.g. you try to control your friends and acquaintances), then it can be considered psychopathic or sociopathic. If you're just trying to minimize harm to things you control, then I'd argue that it's normal. The CEO of a company is very much interested in running things efficiently. Without more information, there's really nothing to suggest this CEO has a mental disorder.

akras14 8y ago

On one hand this seem crazy. On another, every place I worked at was full of free-loaders who did nothing and never got fired. I wonder if things are different at Netflix.

erikb 8y ago
I always feel that freeloaders are not hurting me personally, so why harm them? And it's not like they bring nothing to the table, it's just less than an ambitious/motivated person would. Last but not least, and why I think most people take on freeloaders and keep them: If they switch to another company and are motivated there, it's better for them personally, but might also mean more competition on the market. Therefore better have all people slack off in your offices than give the competition the edge. Not sure if I would agree with that strategy but it has some logic at least.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >I always feel that freeloaders are not hurting me personally, so why harm them? In my experience, over time, freeloaders tend to become vocal and lobby for policy changes (within the team, not corporatewise) that helps keep them there. I've seen them oppose technically sound decisions because they're not sure they can handle the complexity, or (and more commonly) because it involves skills they don't want to learn. Skills well within their reach if they just tried - some of them had those skills in school and they merely need to get a book and review what they once knew. Generally, if you're a motivated person, but in a team with a significant number of "freeloaders", your ability to raise the bar of the team will be limited. I left my last team because of it.
  - erikb 8y ago
    Ah I see, there's certainly a clear difference between our evaluation. If I see a whole team of freeloaders I blame the management team above them. At least in engineering teams it's super easy to have motivated teams because the people choose this career out of desire for working as engineers. Loads of freeloaders means there is no fruitful ground for motivated people to grow on. So they leave or turn into slackers, and some even might become toxic themselves. I don't blame the potatoes if they don't grow though, but either the weather or the farmer.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

Sounds like a bacchanalia for psychopaths...

sunnyP 8y ago

Their environment seems similar to the movie In Bruges. I wonder if Reed Hastings is so dedicated that he would “Keeper Test” himself.

netheril96 8y ago

Relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15607383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15607383

helen___keller 8y ago

Reminds me of stories about working at Goldman Sachs. I guess that’s fair when Tech has become the 21st century go-to yuppie industry

fouc 8y ago

Sounds a bit like Amazon's work environment?

clarle 8y ago

I'm an ex-Netflix engineer (voluntarily left in March to work on my own company, worked there just under 3 years). I don't know what it's like from the executive or middle management side of things, but from the engineering side of things, I liked the fact that people were transparent about their mistakes and there were always detailed write-ups about any technical incidents. Incident post-mortems were always incredibly good for that reason, and I never felt like my job was on the line if I admitted to messing up somewhere. I liked it a lot there, good work/life balance and never really felt stressed. If anything, I didn't think there was enough interesting work to go around as the company was growing a lot bigger. But as an engineer, I wouldn't mind going back.

xivzgrev 8y ago

This isn't all that surprising. Almost 10 years ago Reed literally published all these tenants in a culture presentation that made the rounds in SV. It very much mentions keeper test. https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/reed2001 https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/reed2001 Now what is interesting are the anecdotes about how it impacts people. People often feel motivated by fear, and sometimes feel shamed, etc.

dba7dba 8y ago

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-psychopaths-australian-study-finds/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-... "The study of 261 senior professionals in the United States found that 21 per cent had clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits. The rate of psychopathy in the general population is about one in a hundred." And I personally think if you examine ceos of highly successful companies, the ratio will be higher than 1 in 5. Sure it's ONE study. But it actually makes sense. You don't get to the top in modern corporate world (especially hyper competitive one like the tech) without being slightly crazy.

kamaal 8y ago

>>CEO Reed Hastings is described as a dedicated adherent to the culture It really isn't culture unless it applies to yourself. Does Mr Hastings hold himself to the same standards himself as does to everybody else? >>Kill or be killed seems to be accepted as a mode of operation. A pathetic excuse for a toxic work environment than anything else. This will lead to non-existent to negligible co-operation inside and across teams. Stealth political projects and alliances to sabotage internal projects. Cartel style power structures, purges and internal power dynamics. You usual ala carte toxic political power play. Of course this happens in all companies. But the speed is low. Here it feels like the CEO derives please pouring a catalyst into a run away chemical reaction. >>It’s also led to culture shock as the company rapidly expands, takes on bigger loads of debt, and faces stiff competition. Based on everything I've read so far. I wouldn't be surprised if Jeff Bezos eats these people for lunch in a few years. Bezos isn't known to be employee friendly either, but he is also not a fool. There is a always a fine line between working hard towards a purpose, and pointless busyness just for the heck of it. >>One executive said he was fired because he did not inform others about another employee’s medical condition out of respect for their privacy. Netflix saw this as not being “forthright with us around a major employee issue.” But Jonathan Friedland, former chief communications officer was a little too forthright and open when transparently talking out issues. He was fired this summer Damned if you do, damned if you don't situations happen in processes where people want to screw you regardless, and not exactly because of the merit of your case. Here the cartel boss seems to maintain early communism-esque purge lists.

azr79 8y ago

A lot of contradicting testimonies in this thread, I don't know what to believe anymore.

dang 8y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18304329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18304329

Shorel 8y ago

I wonder if this model would work better with a little bit of gamification. Let me explain: You get fired for not performing. And the gamification part is you can get hired again in that same company, even same position, let's say, three or six months after you were fired. You get your old salary, benefits everything. And the mental relief that being laid of is not permanent. Then you work different this time, with the experience of having done this job before and the experience of being without a job too. It would benefit Netflix a lot more than firing people in a permanent basis, IMO. And with these ultra high salaries, people would go back there.

bjhoops1 8y ago
fry squinting can't tell if ironic or earnest...

youarentryan 8y ago

I really liked working at Netflix, but yeah... puhrty intense culture. Also seems like the Hollywood office is becoming more "Hollywood", which might prove problematic for avoiding all of the dumb mistakes Hollywood people make. With so much attention going to the content side of the biz, I also wonder if top engineers would feel more celebrated at Google, Facebook, or start-ups where their contributions are seen as the primary innovation driver of the business.

JBlue42 8y ago
What sort of dumb mistakes? Also, what engineering/technical challenges do you think Netflix still has to resolve? It seems like things are stable and right now the focus is on content growth / ownership, especially in the face of other companies catching up and trying to compete in the streaming space.