4 ms·

I find Netflix's model works better: allocating resources by visibility of a team. Roughly speaking, a manager gets a chunk of budget from her manager, and she

I find Netflix's model works better: allocating resources by visibility of a team. Roughly speaking, a manager gets a chunk of budget from her manager, and she can decide how big a package she gives to each of her team members. The more important a team becomes, the more budget the team gets. The more visible a person becomes to her manager, the more likely this person will get larger package. This comes with the following nuances: * A team member is responsible for her visibility only to her team and her manager. There is really no need for any popularity contest if the team is small enough. I deem it as fair as it can get. * A manager can definitely abuse the system, but then the team would suffer churn and productivity loss, and the manager would be punished. If the team performed anyway with little churn despite the manager's misbehavior, well, did the manager really misbehaved? * To make the system work, the management chain needs to be perceptive, and teams need to be small. Netflix delivered both, which showed that Reed Hastings is a truly great CEO.

lazyant 7y ago
I may not agree completely with Netflix' philosophy but I love that it has "tests", like "would you fight for a person to stay? if not, let her go" https://jobs.netflix.com/culture https://jobs.netflix.com/culture
- mywittyname 7y ago
  With the caveat that you need to be like Netflix to pull this off. Most companies don't have the endless talent pool to feed from that makes this strategy work. So many have to settle for, "Is this person better than no one?
kamaal 7y ago
>>she can decide how big a package she gives to each of her team members In my experience this turns out be a huge scam. Worse a legally sanctioned scam. Say she had 11 members in her team. She will give $90 to her pet, and $1 each to the remaining 10. That is how this works on the longer run. The definition of a 'high performer' is often hazy here, and a case can be built up to justify giving the money to whom she wants. Eventually it turns out there are enormous cartel like structures, you have to be in them to get paid up well. Or you slog like a donkey and quit eventually.
- hintymad 7y ago
  Nope. Netflix would not allow that to happen. There is always a balance and check, freedom and responsibility, right?
  - kamaal 7y ago
    Who is watching? And who will keep things in check? People who are supposed to approve, audit and verify are a part of the same system playing with the same incentives.

lazyant 7y ago

I may not agree completely with Netflix' philosophy but I love that it has "tests", like "would you fight for a person to stay? if not, let her go" https://jobs.netflix.com/culture https://jobs.netflix.com/culture

mywittyname 7y ago
With the caveat that you need to be like Netflix to pull this off. Most companies don't have the endless talent pool to feed from that makes this strategy work. So many have to settle for, "Is this person better than no one?

kamaal 7y ago

>>she can decide how big a package she gives to each of her team members In my experience this turns out be a huge scam. Worse a legally sanctioned scam. Say she had 11 members in her team. She will give $90 to her pet, and $1 each to the remaining 10. That is how this works on the longer run. The definition of a 'high performer' is often hazy here, and a case can be built up to justify giving the money to whom she wants. Eventually it turns out there are enormous cartel like structures, you have to be in them to get paid up well. Or you slog like a donkey and quit eventually.

hintymad 7y ago
Nope. Netflix would not allow that to happen. There is always a balance and check, freedom and responsibility, right?
- kamaal 7y ago
  Who is watching? And who will keep things in check? People who are supposed to approve, audit and verify are a part of the same system playing with the same incentives.