6 ms·

Same experience with that chief talent officer. I think it was supposed to be a pure sell interview, but it ended up being super tacky and uncomfortable. She we

Same experience with that chief talent officer. I think it was supposed to be a pure sell interview, but it ended up being super tacky and uncomfortable. She went on and on about how much money they had. She went on and on about firing 51% of the people every year - which is not only unsustainable, but not supported by any kind of evidence of routinely culled NF engineers looking for work in the Bay Area. She was so busy congratulating herself and being smug I don't even know why I was in the room. The rest of the interviewers were great.

dustingetz 12y ago
"She went on and on about firing 51% of the people every year" Wait, what? Slow down a sec and elaborate more about this please
- ProAm 12y ago
  Netflix has a history of trimming unneeded employees as soon as they are deemed unneeded.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  Netflix models employment like a professional sports engagement, where performance is regularly reviewed in context and persons who no longer contribute to the "team dynamic" are "traded", i.e., fired, to go find a "team" in which their contributions are a better fit. Everyone knows this because Netflix released a big presentation about it a while ago. They keep "top performers" only as long as they are top performance from Netflix's perspective, and then dismiss them with a "generous severance". It's definitely an interesting way to do employment.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Sounds like contractors. Why not just admit it and fire everybody?
    - cookiecaper 12y ago
      I agree that it sounds like contracting. They're trying to normalize it, I think. Most people won't be contractors because contractors have to pay extra taxes, buy their own benefits, and have no job security. Netflix takes care of these first two and makes the last one softer by giving a "generous severance" while the ex-employee finds a new home (I'm not sure on the specifics of how that works; maybe a NF employee who has been "traded" can offer detail (though he's probably contractually forbidden from doing so)).
  - dustingetz 12y ago
    yes but 51%? that's a ridiculous number.
samstave 12y ago
This person's actual ID needs to be called out! if not on HN - make anon reviews on Glassdoor with the actual name of this person.
- MortenK 12y ago
  Please don't start a witch hunt on the basis of a handful internet comments. We should be better than that.
  - santacluster 12y ago
    Not necessary, because this person and her views are quite well known: http://firstround.com/article/The-woman-behind-the-Netflix-Culture-doc http://firstround.com/article/The-woman-behind-the-Netflix-C... What's basically clear is that the candidates complaining here a) didn't do their basic f-ing homework, and b) are seriously misrepresenting Netflix views on letting people go. Not I agree with that part of Netflix culture (and it would pretty much be illegal in most Western countries), but there is a clear logic behind it, and I seriously doubt they skipped that part in the interview.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      What's basically clear is that the candidates complaining here (...) are seriously misrepresenting Netflix views on letting people go. You can assume the posters here are being malicious, or that they're honestly telling what they understood from the interview. If the latter, then I'd argue it's Netflix fault for failing to leave the right impression.
  - revelation 12y ago
    How is it a witch hunt? Labor is supposed to be a market, no?
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      Naming the person opens them up to personal harassment (which happens way more than people think). Potential employees don't need to know her name to make an informed decision about whether or not apply to Netflix.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
vanessa98 12y ago
In the following days, they followed up with an offer that wasn't an offer - they would make an offer only if I said yes, but otherwise they weren't going to make an offer. They had the hiring manager call me a bunch of times. They tried to get me on a sell call with the ceo. They disparaged the other companies I was talking to. Meh. Also, they were title crazy - everyone in management I spoke to was either a director or a vice-president or a chief of something.
runamok 12y ago
Just a random addition. Someone in this thread posited that this was "Patty" as mentioned in this blog post I read today. http://consultingadultblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/unreasonable-indeed.html http://consultingadultblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/unreasonable... I just thought it was incredibly interesting how a person can be so polarizing. This person acts like she walks on water!

dustingetz 12y ago

"She went on and on about firing 51% of the people every year" Wait, what? Slow down a sec and elaborate more about this please

ProAm 12y ago
Netflix has a history of trimming unneeded employees as soon as they are deemed unneeded.
cookiecaper 12y ago
Netflix models employment like a professional sports engagement, where performance is regularly reviewed in context and persons who no longer contribute to the "team dynamic" are "traded", i.e., fired, to go find a "team" in which their contributions are a better fit. Everyone knows this because Netflix released a big presentation about it a while ago. They keep "top performers" only as long as they are top performance from Netflix's perspective, and then dismiss them with a "generous severance". It's definitely an interesting way to do employment.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Sounds like contractors. Why not just admit it and fire everybody?
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    I agree that it sounds like contracting. They're trying to normalize it, I think. Most people won't be contractors because contractors have to pay extra taxes, buy their own benefits, and have no job security. Netflix takes care of these first two and makes the last one softer by giving a "generous severance" while the ex-employee finds a new home (I'm not sure on the specifics of how that works; maybe a NF employee who has been "traded" can offer detail (though he's probably contractually forbidden from doing so)).
- dustingetz 12y ago
  yes but 51%? that's a ridiculous number.

samstave 12y ago

This person's actual ID needs to be called out! if not on HN - make anon reviews on Glassdoor with the actual name of this person.

MortenK 12y ago
Please don't start a witch hunt on the basis of a handful internet comments. We should be better than that.
- santacluster 12y ago
  Not necessary, because this person and her views are quite well known: http://firstround.com/article/The-woman-behind-the-Netflix-Culture-doc http://firstround.com/article/The-woman-behind-the-Netflix-C... What's basically clear is that the candidates complaining here a) didn't do their basic f-ing homework, and b) are seriously misrepresenting Netflix views on letting people go. Not I agree with that part of Netflix culture (and it would pretty much be illegal in most Western countries), but there is a clear logic behind it, and I seriously doubt they skipped that part in the interview.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    What's basically clear is that the candidates complaining here (...) are seriously misrepresenting Netflix views on letting people go. You can assume the posters here are being malicious, or that they're honestly telling what they understood from the interview. If the latter, then I'd argue it's Netflix fault for failing to leave the right impression.
- revelation 12y ago
  How is it a witch hunt? Labor is supposed to be a market, no?
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    Naming the person opens them up to personal harassment (which happens way more than people think). Potential employees don't need to know her name to make an informed decision about whether or not apply to Netflix.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

vanessa98 12y ago

In the following days, they followed up with an offer that wasn't an offer - they would make an offer only if I said yes, but otherwise they weren't going to make an offer. They had the hiring manager call me a bunch of times. They tried to get me on a sell call with the ceo. They disparaged the other companies I was talking to. Meh. Also, they were title crazy - everyone in management I spoke to was either a director or a vice-president or a chief of something.

runamok 12y ago

Just a random addition. Someone in this thread posited that this was "Patty" as mentioned in this blog post I read today. http://consultingadultblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/unreasonable-indeed.html http://consultingadultblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/unreasonable... I just thought it was incredibly interesting how a person can be so polarizing. This person acts like she walks on water!