4 ms·

I understand why you would be skeptical, it seems like more rah-rah crap from a successful tech company. However, it is not a puff piece, it's completely accur

by cestep 12y ago

I understand why you would be skeptical, it seems like more rah-rah crap from a successful tech company. However, it is not a puff piece, it's completely accurate. Political "warfare" or other malicious actions are not tolerated at any level at Netflix. Netflix only looks for sharp people that are also a cultural fit. If you are smart and negative, you won't last long.

tw04 12y ago
I don't think that counters what OP is saying. Netflix is publicly traded. Their CEO, who sets the cultural tone, only lasts as long as the shareholders allow him to last. If they start floundering for enough consecutive quarters, I guarantee you Reed will be gone and a PHB who will "maximize shareholder value" will replace him. If the Mikes can be ousted from RIM, you can bet your rear that Hastings can be ousted from Netflix. And once "maximizing shareholder value" becomes the goal, "culture" becomes an afterthought.
- richardking 12y ago
  Well, yeah, if the company isn't doing well and leadership changes, obviously that'll trickle down to employees and culture. No one said it'll be like this forever at Netflix, but it does sound like they put a heavy emphasis on "culture" now.
- svachalek 12y ago
  Exactly. Because anything can happen, Netflix could be a terrible place to work in the future, and therefore it is definitely not a good place to work now.
  - tw04 12y ago
    That's not the point, and not what OP or I said. He said that the benefits Brendan describes are more a result of being a growing company than "being Netflix". He didn't say it wasn't a good place to work now, and he didn't say it would be a terrible place to work in the future. You did.
johan_larson 12y ago
The part I'm skeptical about is, "Adequate performance gets a generous severance packet." Can't say I've ever heard of an organization where that's true. Typically, adequate performance means no promo, and being first in line for dismissal if the order comes down to cut staff. Firing someone who is trying and doing sort of OK-ish but not actually well sounds hard. I would expect all but the hardest of hearts to be reluctant to dismiss a lowish performer, preferring to hope that experience and mentoring will yield a turnaround. People have empathy, after all. (Well, except for the sociopaths...) In fact, to actually get managers to get rid of the merely adequate, you'd probably have to institute something like an up-or-out system, so managers could blame the system rather than themselves or the workers when the merely adequate got shoved out the door.

by cestep 12y ago

tw04 12y ago

I don't think that counters what OP is saying. Netflix is publicly traded. Their CEO, who sets the cultural tone, only lasts as long as the shareholders allow him to last. If they start floundering for enough consecutive quarters, I guarantee you Reed will be gone and a PHB who will "maximize shareholder value" will replace him. If the Mikes can be ousted from RIM, you can bet your rear that Hastings can be ousted from Netflix. And once "maximizing shareholder value" becomes the goal, "culture" becomes an afterthought.

richardking 12y ago
Well, yeah, if the company isn't doing well and leadership changes, obviously that'll trickle down to employees and culture. No one said it'll be like this forever at Netflix, but it does sound like they put a heavy emphasis on "culture" now.
svachalek 12y ago
Exactly. Because anything can happen, Netflix could be a terrible place to work in the future, and therefore it is definitely not a good place to work now.
- tw04 12y ago
  That's not the point, and not what OP or I said. He said that the benefits Brendan describes are more a result of being a growing company than "being Netflix". He didn't say it wasn't a good place to work now, and he didn't say it would be a terrible place to work in the future. You did.

johan_larson 12y ago

The part I'm skeptical about is, "Adequate performance gets a generous severance packet." Can't say I've ever heard of an organization where that's true. Typically, adequate performance means no promo, and being first in line for dismissal if the order comes down to cut staff. Firing someone who is trying and doing sort of OK-ish but not actually well sounds hard. I would expect all but the hardest of hearts to be reluctant to dismiss a lowish performer, preferring to hope that experience and mentoring will yield a turnaround. People have empathy, after all. (Well, except for the sociopaths...) In fact, to actually get managers to get rid of the merely adequate, you'd probably have to institute something like an up-or-out system, so managers could blame the system rather than themselves or the workers when the merely adequate got shoved out the door.