Managers got way to much power over their subordinates. The looming one-sided threat of being instant-fired cultivates such a psychotic inducing culture of ass-kissing it is not healthy for a company.
I guess Netflix could make the rule bilateral? "Should we hire your boss right now?" being asked each quarter.
It’s surprising this attitude (and stuff like stack ranking) is so prevalent in tech. Tech workers are professionals, not burger flippers. You create all sorts of incentives that are bad for the institution long term, like discouraging cooperation, discouraging people from owing up to mistakes, acknowledging when ideas don’t work, etc.
Positive incentives can get you only so far. For the organisation it might be better to get rid of these people at the cost of low morale, to ensure that the company stays competitive.
The purpose of tech workers is to increase the ROI on compute capital for the 0.1% that own most all stocks.
This group has captured all the technology induced productivity gains since the 70s from nearly all of society as a %, so their system is working extremely well on average (for them).
At big companies everyone is a burger flipper in the end, it seems. But that’s part of the deal when joining these massive orgs — good pay at the expense of being a cog.
> The looming one-sided threat of being instant-fired cultivates such a psychotic inducing culture of ass-kissing it is not healthy for a company.
My guess is that if you work at Netflix, you've done at least a bit of research into the culture, and they aren't exactly secretive about how fire-happy they are, so hopefully most know what they're getting themselves into.
> Specifically, Netflix has something called the “keeper test,” which is a measure for management to fire or retain staff. It's very simple; a manager is supposed to ask: "If one of the members of the team was thinking of leaving for another firm, would I try hard to keep them from leaving?"
> CEO Reed Hastings and then-HR Chief Patty McCord wanted to encourage “independent decision making” among employees, but also retain only those who were “highly effective.” As a result, they nurtured a culture in which even longtime employees were ruthlessly evaluated; if they were no longer the best at their role (at least in the eyes of their manager), they were out.
> crux of these tests is to help managers decide (as Hastings did with McCord) if they would fight to keep an employee around. If the answer is no, that employee is terminated or asked to leave. Netflix’s 360 tool provides broad context for personnel decisions. It’s meant to encourage objectivity, but it also seems to produce obscure, sometimes startling changes in the hierarchy.
> Simply put, you can’t copy it, because you’re not Reed Hastings, and your company isn't Netflix. Nor can you likely become him. Employees describe him as a man “unencumbered by emotion.”
Maybe Netflix is successful because of it, maybe they're successful despite of it. They don't seem to at least have any issues recruiting, despite widespread knowledge of the conditions.
But it wouldn't help to cut the headcount sufficiently if the question was reversed. I think that Netflix is dying and they need to extract the last drops of value for the shareholders. As a technology company, they were among the first to solve large-scale streaming but now everyone's caught up, so they have nothing to show for.
But your manager operates in a jurisdiction where defamation law exists.
Defame someone verbally and it is slander, defame someone in writing and it is libel. A defamatory statement must be false.
When psychopaths ascend, they will abuse their position and assassinate the character of people that cannot be used as pawns. When I say psychopaths, note that only a subset of managers are psychopaths, but psychopathic traits are favored by organizations and they are more likely to become managers, and that subset is highly toxic.
Freedom of expression has limits, defamation is one of them. You cannot just say whatever you want and cause financial losses to others.
The fiction created by a psychopathic manager through manipulation can cross legal lines. And it is time to put an end to this practice that plagues engineering organizations. It is time to let the justice system do its work.
We have enough technology to automatically detect problematic behaviors like sycophancy and other types of manipulation with AI and take that as a factor in evaluations, or take administrative action. In this way, we can finally let people focus on doing their job without the distractions of office politics. i.e.: analyze the sentiment of words used with peers vs managers and if sentiment diverges too much then fire the sycophant, and if a manager only has sycophants as reports, fire the manager too.
And while we are at it, completely destroy the culture of lying through idioms such as "maybe later", "I will think about it" instead of simply saying "no" as they are predictors for dishonesty which ultimately it is a waste of time.
Being a manager should require a license and manipulative behavior past certain limits should get it permanently revoked. We need to make a piñata out of the concept of being a professional liar in an engineering organization as a source of income, we are better than this.
Employee evaluation is not defamation. Boss evaluation is called 360 and has been around forever. I regularly submitted my direct reports to my boss for candid comments about my performance. It's part of a healthy culture.
Also, maybe we're all ICs here, but your boss has a boss who is asking the same damn question about them as they are about you. And up it goes until you reach the board, YC, etc, who just has a different kind of boss.
Looking back at every job I've ever had, I would not pass the current hiring bar two years after being hired. Companies are just getting pickier and pickier, more and more conservative and risk adverse, and shrinking rather than growing the pool of candidates they are considering. Sometimes it seems they are acting as though a single bad hire will torpedo the business.
It's ironic that while they keep raising the bar, they also keep complaining that they just can't find talent anymore...
I think it's an interesting question to turn around - for the current "good" employees, would Netflix's current hiring process allow them to be hired, or would the hiring team look at their resume and pass? Seems eminently testable too, just ask for resumes and anonymize them. You could even bring in current employees for interviews if they were willing to "red team". :-)
I am failing to find an original source, on what could be internet legend, but supposedly this happened at Google. Someone submitted the interview panel's hiring-date resumes to the panel (presumably with some minor names/dates swapped). Panel fully rejected themselves.
Second half of the headline, possibly cut for length?
"—and fire them if the answer is no"
Which escalates things from how I initially read it! I know many companies have an eligible for re-hire bit and at least a couple of the FAANGs have an additional soft version of that bit [both set at separation].
That's not true at all. I've never worked there and have heard of the keeper test for years, ever since the culture memo leaked in 2009. Here's an article from 2010 about it: https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/hr-magazine/tough-lov.... The company's culture page has mentioned it ever since its first iteration in 2017 (per Wayback Machine).
I used to work for one of their biggest hubs and was one of their most senior employees. I saw a lot of highet-ups come and go. They wanted perfection, or something damn close to it. Good thing I was content being a QC inspector and driver, because I wouldn't have taken any kind of management position even if one had been offered to me.
I was a department manager at a Fortune 500 Company that required every department head to rank all the department employees from 1 - (n) based upon performance and importance to the department.
Senior VPs had to do the same for the department managers who reported to them.
We were instructed to fire the bottom 10% every year.
If you want managers to fire marginal employees you have to make it so doing so doesn’t screw them over. That means always backfilling (quickly) and meanwhile adjusting output expectations.
I've never worked at Netflix but the above reflects my understanding of the culture there, with this addition:
Unlike the approach of being required to stack rank and fire the bottom x%, managers aren't required to fire anyone but are supported if they decide someone is no longer adding value.
I think the fact I know this means they are pretty transparent about it.
Obviously, that could be applied unfairly.
Given the transparency, you need to decide:
1. Does the hiring manager seem like a reasonable person?
2. What is the hiring manager's / company's definition of reasonable expectations?
3. Am I willing and able to sustain the kind of efforts that those expectations entail?
4. Am I willing and able to deal with the ego, financial, and hassle ramifications of being wrong about any of the previous questions?
I think it's a reasonable way to run a business.
It's not a way I want to participate in, so I hope it doesn't become the only way.
"This makes sense to me because I'm in the in-group" is basically how I feel about "unlimited vacation" policies. If you've a Type A person who's tight with your boss, it's great. If you're non-confrontational and you think maybe your boss doesn't like you, or if you really need to keep your job, it's a nightmare.
Less time spent dealing with the paperwork of tracking it and accounting for the termination liability of paying out vacation. Those are the two main reasons. I’ve always preferred it because the alternative is usually some too small fixed amount of vacation that I don’t have access to for the first year. It still takes just as much political capital to take time off as long as your boss has to approve, regardless of whether it’s “unlimited” or not.
I imagine the charitable story goes "if we have a good way of measuring your contributions, we don't need to bother counting your hours and days because we'll know whether you're effective without doing that, and if we don't have a good way of measuring your performance, we have bigger problems that vacation policies won't fix." But that's kind of bullshit.
Not sure how this is different from a job with a defined amount of vacation. Your boss generally needs to approve either way. Plenty of horror stories of people losing carried-over vacation time because the boss wouldn’t approve it. Not sure how “unlimited” leave policies make any difference here.
Not clearly defining the benefit is to the advantage of the employer. A defined vacation policy means that if you're fired, the company needs to pay out your unused vacation. It means that if your boss isn't letting you take it, there's a problem between the written policy and your boss's preference, and that might mean a resolution mechanism. It means additional ammunition when asking because it's your due, not a favor. It means that the person who is not socially adroit understands how much vacation they're allowed and isn't leaving available vacation unused.
I interviewed at Netflix in 2015. Unlike every other company I interviewed at, they earmarked you for a team before you interviewed. I didn't know what teams were available; the recruiter earmarked me for the logged out experience.
I didn't get the job. The feedback? "You aced the technical stuff and everyone loved you, but we didn't sense your passion for the logged out experience."
Former Googler. I did not make it past the Netflix recruiter phone screen because they had me read the culture memo before the first call and when asked what I thought about it I said "kind of culty but I can deal with it". Apparently that is not the correct answer.
While reading some longish culture thing on Netflix hiring pages, it started out OK, but by the end... I'm skeptical of places that are self-congratulatory about their own supposed superiority. I expect those places to probably have dim-wittedness, mediocrity, and game-playing.
I really hate how a lot of people treat a manager as a "mini-boss".
A manager should really just be another role on the team, with the possibility of firing a team member being a decision for the team, not a single managerial role.
Everyone should get a vote in who stays, otherwise you just end up with a bunch of sociopaths running the show.
I've never worked at a company where your manager was not also your "boss." You do what your manager tells you to do, make them look good, defer to them when necessary, because they utterly control whether you continue to work there or not. I'd love to learn about a company where this is not true. Not doubting it, but genuinely curious because it is counter to all of my 25 years of career experience.
I work in a country with strict laws around firing and while I suspect our laws are generally too strict, this is one of the big upsides in my view. It just makes for a healthier dynamic. People feel (reasonably) free to speak their mind, disagree, or stand up for themselves. Management is based more on merits and consensus than power and hierarchy.
Disclaimer: I've never worked in the US. The difference is probably not as pronounced as I imagine it to be!
Netflix should stop trying to be a tech company or some amazing new management culture company and focus on quality content. So much waste Netflix produces.
Netflix has to be a tech company because a significant part of their product is the usually pretty seemless streaming experience. Of course, a technically good streaming experience and mediocre content isn't great.
But using apps on Roku and Samsung TVs (and some older platforms, like the Wii player and some blu-ray players), Netflix is consistently better tecnically than Amazon, Hulu/Espn/Disney, Apple+ (maybe it's good on AppleTvs, but it was garbage on Roku); and then all the free ones are way worse.
Oh please. Pornhub has better tech than them but they are not walking around talking about their micro services and management principles because they don't believe in virtue signalling.
Does pornhub have clients on a bazillion platforms? Pretty sure they never released one for my blu-ray players. I haven't looked to see if they have a client for Roku or Samsung or LG tvs...
I guess Netflix could make the rule bilateral? "Should we hire your boss right now?" being asked each quarter.
reply