10 ms·

I do agree that the honesty is refreshing. That said, I personally feel like the mentality of "We will fire you if you aren't doing an _exceptional_ job" reads

I do agree that the honesty is refreshing. That said, I personally feel like the mentality of "We will fire you if you aren't doing an _exceptional_ job" reads as a serious red flag. The implication here is that you should expect to work overtime and prioritize your job over all else. Even then, we might still fire you. Of course I'd rather have a company being open and upfront about their unsustainable expectations, but I'd still prefer a company that values work/live balance of their employees. Would I say that Netflix's approach is toxic? Honestly, yes. But I do understand that this is just my own opinion.

p1esk 5y ago
You do realize they offer top of market compensation (250k fresh grad, >500k senior SWE, etc) for what they are looking for?
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  So your argument would be, as long as the pay is right, toxic culture is allright? I mean, as long as this is a individual decision, that would be allright with me - but pay does not negate toxic. It only makes it bearable. But like stated above, I do not say that Netflix culture is toxic, as they are clear about what they expect: top performance above everything else. That this can lead to toxic situations, as we all are not only having good times - should be clear to anyone applying. But I suppose even at netflix they are aware of this and hopefully have plans to deal with temporary burn outs, other than instantly firing those underperformers.
  - p1esk 5y ago
    So your argument would be, as long as the pay is right, toxic culture is allright? No. Why would you think so?
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Because the context was toxic culture?
      - p1esk 5y ago
        No, the context was Netflix seeking top performance (results) from its employees. Whether this leads to toxic culture is a different question and up for a debate. My point is a company that offers top compensation can and should demand top performance.
        hutzlibu 5y ago
        "Whether this leads to toxic culture is a different question and up for a debate" And here I was thinking this whole thread was about that question ... "My point is a company that offers top compensation can and should demand top performance. " Anyway, sure they can. But no company can expect from me, to put the company over my self. A good company has those goals aligned. I get money - and they get performance. Win win. But I will not work to death for them, as then all my money would be worthless. That is - no for-profit company can expect this from me. A non-profit on the other hand, that has truly utilitarian goals, that really benefit humanity - I might consider putting myself aside. But why should anyone sacrifice himself, so a company makes more money? That doesn't make sense to me. But of course it makes sense, that companies want their employes give everything to them.
        p1esk 5y ago
        no company can expect from me, to put the company over my self Yes, I agree, they should not have said that. That should have been left implicit. When a certain pay threshold is crossed (e.g. triple the industry average), I would expect them to expect extra from me. This might mean working nights/weekends if that's necessary for me to be "top performer" compared to my peers. Netflix expects you to keep up with their performance standards. They don't care how you do it - by working overtime, or being brilliant and working 2 hours a day, it simply does not matter, just like in professional sports. If, as you said, you get money, they get performance, it's a win win. But if you get money, but they don't get the expected performance, you can't blame it on toxic culture. If your peers are delivering and you're not, then you're toxic, and you should probably look for an easier job with less pay.
tux3 5y ago
>The implication here is that you should expect to work overtime and prioritize your job over all else. I don't think that's right. The slide says: """ Hard Work — Not Relevant We don't measure people by how many hours they work or how much they are in the office [...] Sustained B-level performance despite effort generates severance Sustained A-level performance despite minimal effort is rewarded """ The message seems to be that you don't have to work hard. They seem to say they want lazy employees that have a good work life balance, because they finish work early. Whether that's toxic or not, that's another question. But I don't think they value overtime at all.
- sdiupIGPWEfh 5y ago
  What I've seen happen at other companies that state they value impact over effort, openly discouraging overtime, is that eventually certain individuals will attain higher impact by not recording their overtime, who then pressure others to do the same. No, no one is directly rewarded for overtime, but effectively, yes, undocumented overtime becomes the expectation from your peers. That is toxic.
  - p1esk 5y ago
    How do you know if there’s overtime involved? I’ve worked with people who could accomplish as much in two hours as I did in two days. Would it be “toxic” to work in such an environment?
    - sdiupIGPWEfh 5y ago
      If your colleagues are leveraging substantial undocumented overtime, you're going to find out eventually. If you know someone is in the office 40 hours a week and they submit massive pull requests first thing in the morning, even Monday mornings, for problems you know they hadn't solved or started the night or week before, you should suspect something's up. Sooner or later, if someone's breaking their neck, they will resent team members who aren't putting in the same effort, and they'll slip and admit to the amount of time they're putting in, directly or indirectly. Granted, it's easier to hide this now when everyone's working from home. > I’ve worked with people who could accomplish as much in two hours as I did in two days. Would it be “toxic” to work in such an environment? No, why would that be toxic?
csee 5y ago
I interpret that as a positive sign. Every manager and company I've worked for has been too slow to fire under-performers.
- chasd00 5y ago
  If you've never done it, it's very hard, emotionally, to fire an under-performer. You see someone struggling and you know it's best for your team/company but now you're going to put that person out of a job. I'm not excusing it, but I can see people putting off firing under-performers just to avoid feeling like shit.
- jayd16 5y ago
  I would say that one possibly toxic element to that is that it could mean that Netflix is not a place to grow. Do not expect help improving. Expect the door. That has other knock on effects like possibly hiding struggles, faking results, etc etc. Does Netflix actually have such a cutthroat culture? I have no idea. The slides are a bit contradictory. They talk about only keeping top talent but then also mention a major/minor league analogy. So what's the culture, really?
1123581321 5y ago
Netflix itself uses the analogy of a high-performing sports team, or at least used to. So this would be like if the LA Rams say they will drop you from the team if you aren't NFL caliber. It's hard to read a straightforwardly high expectation to match the environment and coworkers as toxic. Now, it is toxic if a mediocre organization tries to fire a particular good performer because they aren't exceptional, when clearly the rest of the organization also isn't exceptional. That is dishonest, delusional, etc.

p1esk 5y ago

You do realize they offer top of market compensation (250k fresh grad, >500k senior SWE, etc) for what they are looking for?

hutzlibu 5y ago
So your argument would be, as long as the pay is right, toxic culture is allright? I mean, as long as this is a individual decision, that would be allright with me - but pay does not negate toxic. It only makes it bearable. But like stated above, I do not say that Netflix culture is toxic, as they are clear about what they expect: top performance above everything else. That this can lead to toxic situations, as we all are not only having good times - should be clear to anyone applying. But I suppose even at netflix they are aware of this and hopefully have plans to deal with temporary burn outs, other than instantly firing those underperformers.
- p1esk 5y ago
  So your argument would be, as long as the pay is right, toxic culture is allright? No. Why would you think so?
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    Because the context was toxic culture?
    - p1esk 5y ago
      No, the context was Netflix seeking top performance (results) from its employees. Whether this leads to toxic culture is a different question and up for a debate. My point is a company that offers top compensation can and should demand top performance.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        "Whether this leads to toxic culture is a different question and up for a debate" And here I was thinking this whole thread was about that question ... "My point is a company that offers top compensation can and should demand top performance. " Anyway, sure they can. But no company can expect from me, to put the company over my self. A good company has those goals aligned. I get money - and they get performance. Win win. But I will not work to death for them, as then all my money would be worthless. That is - no for-profit company can expect this from me. A non-profit on the other hand, that has truly utilitarian goals, that really benefit humanity - I might consider putting myself aside. But why should anyone sacrifice himself, so a company makes more money? That doesn't make sense to me. But of course it makes sense, that companies want their employes give everything to them.
        p1esk 5y ago
        no company can expect from me, to put the company over my self Yes, I agree, they should not have said that. That should have been left implicit. When a certain pay threshold is crossed (e.g. triple the industry average), I would expect them to expect extra from me. This might mean working nights/weekends if that's necessary for me to be "top performer" compared to my peers. Netflix expects you to keep up with their performance standards. They don't care how you do it - by working overtime, or being brilliant and working 2 hours a day, it simply does not matter, just like in professional sports. If, as you said, you get money, they get performance, it's a win win. But if you get money, but they don't get the expected performance, you can't blame it on toxic culture. If your peers are delivering and you're not, then you're toxic, and you should probably look for an easier job with less pay.

tux3 5y ago

>The implication here is that you should expect to work overtime and prioritize your job over all else. I don't think that's right. The slide says: """ Hard Work — Not Relevant We don't measure people by how many hours they work or how much they are in the office [...] Sustained B-level performance despite effort generates severance Sustained A-level performance despite minimal effort is rewarded """ The message seems to be that you don't have to work hard. They seem to say they want lazy employees that have a good work life balance, because they finish work early. Whether that's toxic or not, that's another question. But I don't think they value overtime at all.

sdiupIGPWEfh 5y ago
What I've seen happen at other companies that state they value impact over effort, openly discouraging overtime, is that eventually certain individuals will attain higher impact by not recording their overtime, who then pressure others to do the same. No, no one is directly rewarded for overtime, but effectively, yes, undocumented overtime becomes the expectation from your peers. That is toxic.
- p1esk 5y ago
  How do you know if there’s overtime involved? I’ve worked with people who could accomplish as much in two hours as I did in two days. Would it be “toxic” to work in such an environment?
  - sdiupIGPWEfh 5y ago
    If your colleagues are leveraging substantial undocumented overtime, you're going to find out eventually. If you know someone is in the office 40 hours a week and they submit massive pull requests first thing in the morning, even Monday mornings, for problems you know they hadn't solved or started the night or week before, you should suspect something's up. Sooner or later, if someone's breaking their neck, they will resent team members who aren't putting in the same effort, and they'll slip and admit to the amount of time they're putting in, directly or indirectly. Granted, it's easier to hide this now when everyone's working from home. > I’ve worked with people who could accomplish as much in two hours as I did in two days. Would it be “toxic” to work in such an environment? No, why would that be toxic?

csee 5y ago

I interpret that as a positive sign. Every manager and company I've worked for has been too slow to fire under-performers.

chasd00 5y ago
If you've never done it, it's very hard, emotionally, to fire an under-performer. You see someone struggling and you know it's best for your team/company but now you're going to put that person out of a job. I'm not excusing it, but I can see people putting off firing under-performers just to avoid feeling like shit.
jayd16 5y ago
I would say that one possibly toxic element to that is that it could mean that Netflix is not a place to grow. Do not expect help improving. Expect the door. That has other knock on effects like possibly hiding struggles, faking results, etc etc. Does Netflix actually have such a cutthroat culture? I have no idea. The slides are a bit contradictory. They talk about only keeping top talent but then also mention a major/minor league analogy. So what's the culture, really?

1123581321 5y ago

Netflix itself uses the analogy of a high-performing sports team, or at least used to. So this would be like if the LA Rams say they will drop you from the team if you aren't NFL caliber. It's hard to read a straightforwardly high expectation to match the environment and coworkers as toxic. Now, it is toxic if a mediocre organization tries to fire a particular good performer because they aren't exceptional, when clearly the rest of the organization also isn't exceptional. That is dishonest, delusional, etc.