This misses the point of their culture. It’s not about time and energy, though those probably are given in mass amounts. They don’t value your time or energy - only your output. But they recognize this model isn’t for everyone and they discourage people staying at the company who aren’t on board with this. Seriously, read the slide deck. What is there that you disagree with?
Hmmm, I think I will read the slide deck when I get a moment. if i’m going to make all these comments about Netflix going to the source would be the best thing to do. Up till now I’ve been focusing my comments based upon the NPR podcast - perhaps reading the slide deck will give me a different opinion.
It’s hard to say what the work world will look like 25 years hence. What did the working world look like in 1990 before email and the internet became commonplace? Lots of people in big desks typing into green dumb terminals and passing a lot of paper.
With the way things are going, I suspect that demand for consultants and contractors will continue to grow. Especially as technology enables you to perform work from anywhere on Earth for someone else anywhere else on Earth.
It’s the giant monolithic companies that are in danger IMHO for the same reason the 40 year job at the same company is nearly extinct. The world is changing too quickly.
I’ve worked for a lot of companies, so I’ve seen a lot of different company cultures. These high performance companies are, in fact, a lot like sports teams. That is to say, it’s great to be a Yankee if you’re Derek Jeter. If you’re an nth stringer constantly on the verge of getting traded, it isn’t so great.
I don’t see the downside? Dominating other areas are potential tools to achieve a high quality of life, not independent goals.
If they have high quality of life at the expense of being globally economically competitive and strong, then that could potentially be a problem.
Singapore seems like a better model also, very very high GDP per capita, very high standard of living and very competitive globally.
(Late to the party and didn’t read the whole thread)
I think the key here is that the Netflix model really only applies to certain companies in certain industries. I have a few friends who work in IT on the west coast, and by and large they moved out there because they’re smart people who want to work on really cool things, in cool places, with cool people and are willing to make sacrifices in order to do so. In short, it’s an employers’ market, and Netflix can treat people as completely expendable because there’s no shortage of talent in their employee market.
The folks running the datacenter to manage Cheerios distribution for GM in Milwaukee don’t have that luxury; they need to foster an environment of loyalty, and if they find someone who can put 2 sentences together and dress appropriately, they’re probably wise to keep them.
The Netflix policy kinda sucks for workers who get fired, but it sucks for them not because they’re suddenly finding themselves unemployed and need to put food on the table, it sucks because they’re suddenly not working for a company like Netflix anymore, and they’ll either need to compete their asses off to get a job at another AAA tech firm doing cool shit in silicon valley or take a boring job that pays well in Milwaukee. It’s hard to feel too bad for someone with those options.
More highlights from the slide deck. From Slide 97:
To do this, they say it takes great judgment. From Slide 98:
Sounds great.
I looked at the slide show and found it laughable more that anything. It’s inspiring in the same way that Jim Jones was inspiring. I really saw it as low grade corporate cult doublespeak nonsense.
In my opinion, your slides are taken out of context. There’s just so much to pick apart and laugh at, and so little time. I’m up for a little tete-a-tete with the slides if you are; perhaps you can sway me to your way of thinking. I’t’ll have to wait until the weekend though.
Sure thing. I’ve gone through a lot of slide presentations like this and this one has been the best I’ve ever seen. I think it’s more telling how other companies view the idea. The COO of Facebook has called the deck one of the most important documents to come out of Silicon Valley.
Call out whichever ones you think are poor and that could be a discussion point.
Don’t get me wrong, it is good in the sense that is a very effective in motivating and inspiring it’s intended audience, I do not dispute that.
When I get a moment I will give a more detailed analysis.
Well, yes but I would argue that you are not achieving a high standard of living then. My point is that you do not necessarily need to “Dominate” anything to provide a high quality of living. Domination tends to be short lived anyway, like Finlands domination of the mobile phone market or Norways domination of the winter olympics.
A stable and strong performance seem more effective over time to me.
That’s really the problem here; these Netflix clowns are basically treating people as commodities, whereby everyone’s interchangeable, and only as worthwhile as the most recent 2-3 sections on their resume.
The problem is that they’re relying on the idea that people WANT to work for them, and are willing to put up with that stuff for the privilege. Which might be true, but if all companies treat employees like that, there’s going to be precious little loyalty from the other direction as well.
“Work past 5 pm because the system desperately needs to be up? Fuck that…you’re just going to fire me in 2 months anyway when this project is done, and I can just get a jump on my next transient gig with someone else who I don’t give a shit about, and who doesn’t give a shit about me.”
Ok, so you obviously didn’t read the Netflix deck or you didn’t understand it.
Netflix appears to be following a lot of the concepts found in James C. Collins management books (Good to Great, Built to Last, etc). Basically, the premise is that you hire impassioned clock-makers rather than very methodical timekeepers. IOW, they absolutely DO NOT want interchangeable cogs. They want a company of brilliant superstars who love their job. I’ve worked for a number of companies like this. While it can be exhilarating working with smart, motivated people without being micromanaged, it can be exhausting as well.
As I mentioned earlier, if you are the sort of person who wants a steady job where you will be told exactly what to do by three levels of managers, this isn’t the job for you. People who want those jobs tend to bitch and moan about work a lot, but when given the opportunity to take part in shaping their job, they resist. They are completely uncomfortable in any role that isn’t sharply defined for them.
The inherent irony of companies like Netflix is that as a company grows, you require more and more controls and metrics to measure your employees to ensure they are meeting your standards and cultural guidelines. One company I used to work for had four performance reviews a year.
Or they become cultlike fraternities. Where you “performance” is based less on “results” (as many positions are white-collar bullshit jobs) as they are based on your ability to “fit in” and cheerlead the companies core values.
The other thing is that as companies grow, every problem can’t (or shouldn’t) be solved by tossing a bunch of brilliant people in a room and seeing what they come up with. Certain tasks need to be operationalized in order to provide consistency (manning call centers, filing your quarterly financials, etc). And operationalization tends to result in drones working drone jobs.
You know who also had a culture of hiring brilliant people and giving them the freedom to succeed? Enron. The same company Netflix uses in their deck as a cautionary example.
I’m only 25 years old, but after having a handful of mediocre jobs, living with my parents and going to community college to work in the health field I’ve learned that what I was told was a lie.
Hard work has nothing to do with success. All that matters is getting in. If hard work counted towards success manual labors would be rich and bankers would be poor.
That doesn’t mean you don’t give an honest effort, but what it does mean is that nearly all your obstacles are out of your control and are essentially arbitrary.
That isn’t to say there aren’t exceptions.
Perhaps I’m being too cynical or fatalistic. At the very least I’m being pessimistic.
Some observations from someone who has been in the work force longer than you have been alive. 
First of all, one must define “success”, as it can differ greatly from person to person. If you can’t define it, you almost certainly won’t achieve it. Second, you will find cases where one worked hard and never obtained “success” and you will see examples of ones who worked nary a lick yet are “successful”. The bell curve, however, would show that hard work and “success” are highly correlated.
To some extent the adage “It’s who you know” is true, especially when getting a foot in the door. From that point on, though, it’s up to you. No company can exist long term if the “who you knows” have to continually cover for everyone else.
Don’t confuse manual labor with hard work. I don’t lift anything heavier than a laptop computer for my company. I sit the vast majority of the day. I work hard analyzing numbers and processes. I guide huge projects. End result - I frequently find ways to save my company large sums of money and effort. My hard work is pretty much all mental, but I add value in a measure much greater that what they pay me. Don’t think only in terms of hard work, think also in terms of the value you add.
By the way, I have worked manual labor jobs as well. At the end of the day I went home physically tired. These days I go home mentally tired. In either case, hard work causes one to be tired.
I’m not sure what you mean by this but, to put it bluntly, an honest effort that does not result in value to the company will not keep one employed. That is a nearly universal business truth. Netflix is just quicker in pulling the trigger than many companies.
I would say that your views represent the exceptions. Don’t get me wrong, we all get discouraged at times, but it doesn’t make those circumstances the norm.
Yes, yes and yes.
Did someone tell you that working a bunch of mediocre jobs, living with your parents and going to community college was a path to success?
Haha, no I’m saying I worked harder at those jobs and made less money then I would with a health education and occupation.
I’m basically saying less prestigious jobs only reward you so much, sure there is some upward mobility possible, but the more educated you are the more upward mobility is available to you.
Sorry for the long delay, I’ve had a busy week.
Anyhow, the biggest problem I have with the Netflix model is that they use different metrics to track performance and compensation. They want employees who are at least 2 to 10 times as productive as average(or more), but will only pay at “top of the market” which is a best 80% higher pay than average, from what I can tell.
Furthermore, they recalibrate this “top of the market” rate every year; so, for example, in year A you could be 3x as productive as average but get paid more than in year B when you were 4x as productive as average.
I think putting these limitations on compensation yet using this language of talent and success for everyone in the company, down to the $14 and hour call center people is disingenuine. A reasonable compensation scheme would have a more consistant approach.
I don’t see how this compensation scheme would benefit any real “A” players, and it is much more limiting that compensation schemes that have already been in existence for a very long time:
-
If you were a car salesman, you make a commission - if you are really good you will make more than 2x average car salesman pay - much more.
-
They don’t pay Matt Damon scale when he stars in a film, he makes exponentially more.
-
Athletes are smart enough to fight against salary caps.
-
Authors keep making money as long as their books keep selling, no limits to earning there.
-
I’d rather be a high class prostitute than work under this Netflix scheme; they can make $1000 an hour.
-
CEO’s have stock plans which reward based on performance; it makes no difference what the average top CEO makes.
-
When I worked for as a stockbroker trainee in New York, the highest earning broker made 4.2 million at 29 years old. If he was paid through a top of the market scheme he would probably have only made 200,000
Expectations of greater and greater production and a low ceiling on pay are nothing I really get excited about. There are far better ways of fairly compensating highly talented and productive workers.