Comment by elq | Hacker News Reader

Comment by elq | Hacker News Reader

I've worked at netflix for about three years. I'm a software engineer and work on personalization. In the time I've been there, not one of the 40 or so people that I know well or work with have been fired. One person I was acquainted with was fired - no one found it surprising. Note that IT was a hellhole with firing about a year ago. Two really good people got dropped. I know more people that have quit - 3, but 1 has come back.

re: pay I make far more than I've made at any of the 4 FT jobs I've had in 15 years. I'm paid a bit less on an hourly basis than my highest rate charged when I did consulting. I'm good. I was expensive.

re: benefits. Netflix matches 401k, they have an ESOP, they have a unique option plan, free (decent) lunches, snacks & drinks, etc.

re: health care. I'm single, my very good insurance program came out to less than $30 per paycheck since I've worked there. Next year they're changing the way insurance is done - every employee got $10k extra pay. This is intended to be used to cover the full cost of insurance, using my current benefits as a baseline it's a bit less that $8000 per year. People with dependents will almost certainly pay more. Many might be unhappy, I personally think it's fair.

re: fear. I have failed many times. I have succeeded more. Perhaps I'm just an smug asshole, but I've never once felt fear for my job.

re: innovation. I've personally spent more time innovating than at any other job I've had, including my last in a corporate research "lab".

The glassdoor review that I wrote after 6 months - http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Netflix-RVW...

Thanks for this perspective, I appreciate it.

However, you noted that the IT department (assuming IT and engineering are separate at Netflix) was overboard with firing. If the manager on Glassdoor worked there, do you think his review is more justified?

Netflix's pronounced strategy is great if you have judicious and fair managers all the way up the ranks in your department, but it seems that it only takes one bad manager to spoil a large bunch of good apples; overall performance is a pretty subjective metric after all, and if you get a particularly closed-minded or prejudiced manager (and such people are plentiful in the IT and engineering sectors; those of us who work with absolutist machines all the time seem to inherit a bit more of their habits than might be desirable) and he gets annoyed at something about you or your work, I doubt it's a very long walk from "awesome excellent performer" to "adequate performer" and a severance package for your average employee.

Does Netflix have guards in place to protect against that? Do you think that the situation the reviewer described could have occurred in the same company because his department had a more difficult manager on the loop? Do you think that you've stuck around because you share the views or preferred styles of the other managers, which thereby makes you "super great performer"? Do you think that the Netflix policies have a tendency to create a useless feedback loop of yes-men and groupthink?

The problem with running a programming team like a sports team is the difference in transparent metrics. There's a few simple measurements for the value of an athlete, depending on perspective: if he has good name recognition, he is a valuable business asset, even if he's not really a high-scorer; if he scores a lot of points and puts your team over the top often, he's a good asset because he increases the value of your franchise by making it win more often, and so on.

The metrics in engineering, especially the day-to-day engineering of going into work, working on programs, and then coming home, are much less clear.

I think his "IT was a hellhole with firing about a year ago" comment referred to the industry, not Netflix in particular.

Consider the next sentence:

"Note that IT was a hellhole with firing about a year ago. Two really good people got dropped."

The 2 people who got dropped were clearly from Netflix.

Yes. Netflix's IT group (Sysadmin's, NOC people, Helpdesk, etc) went through a reorg about a year and a half ago. Lots of change. Not all of it good at the time, but in the end it did work out quite well.

IT fits under the operations umbrella. Engineering fits under the product development umbrella. We're very separate - cost center vs. profit center.

Assuming the reviewer came from IT or another operations group, some of what was written is more understandable, but much of it is not.

Our number one guard against a capricious manager causing trouble is the culture of openness - we're encouraged/expected to say what we think (even if it's controversial). We also have a 360 review process that is unique in that anyone can review anyone else. I could write a review for Reed if I so chose.

I've stuck around because:

- I love working with the people I work with - they're smart, call out bullshit, write good code, value quality, and share knowledge freely.

- I think the management is very competent - as a whole (from exec's down to engineering managers) are at least as smart as any I've interacted with, but they are they are more ethical than any. Every last manager I've interacted with has earned my respect, I don't give it easily.

- The environment is as a-political as I've seen. The meritocracy I expected to find in academia.

I absolutely love working at netflix, they've spoiled me for any other job.

So how does the 360° review process help people who are on the chopping block? Can they request an appeal or re-evaluation? What if someone at an obstructed angle files a review? Just what happened in IT that caused those "two really good people" to be fired? Good sports teams don't let their really good people go. Why didn't you file a review for the two really good people in IT?

Who has final authority to determine that someone is adequate or extraordinary? Again, the idea is subjective, and can be biased toward not performance but individual compatibility, socially or professionally.

Thanks for the perspective. I got the impression that the employee writing the review was actually a poor performer that was disgruntled. I saw the slides on Netflix culture a couple years ago and was personally inspired by them. I've spent too many years working in corporate America, where poor performers are rarely if ever managed out of the workforce. Instead, they are put on PIPs (personal improvement plans) and everything possible is done to prevent the dreaded "lawyering up" and lawsuit for wrongful termination.

Corporate America has become so risk-adverse that they would rather keep poor performers around indefinitely, drawing a paycheck, than risk a single wrongful termination lawsuit. Also, those poor performers are masterful at avoiding work. For example, they keep printouts of every email "just in case," and play games like "you didn't ask me to do that in writing, so that's why I didn't do it."

If the glassdoor review in the article was really correct, don't you think Netflix would have been sued into oblivion already? That's why I don't think the reviewer is being honest about the reasons why he was terminated.

The final summation I have gotten from this + other things from this thread = Glassdoor is a place to review companies. Netflix may be slightly on the reputation decline from this (for most), but for me, I can, ultimately, only appreciate the brand recognition that came for a website I had previously never heard of.

$30 per paycheck: how often are you paid?

every two weeks

Reply on news.ycombinator.com