Yes, ok with it. They are completely transparent about it, and recommend you read the culture deck when applying. In other companies people get taken by surprise when put on pip, as it wasn't in the friendly welcome (koolaid) onboarding packet.
They only hire top performers, which is why they only have one level of engineers ( see levels.fyi ).
Hear from a Netflix engineer that during hike they are asked to come back with what market is offering and they go and interview at places. Whatever highest offer they get that is at least matched. I was like ... 🤪
I’m sure firings at Netflix are not always low performers. I’ve heard there is pressure to make cuts or you’re seen as not doing your job. Besides, what if your manager feels threatened by you. I dunno sounds like it could be get pretty f’ed up.
Yeah, but they become bad managers after many bad decisions. It means that multiple ICs can loose their job, before someone is tagged as bad manager. Even then, if the manager had good relations with their boss, more chances are given.
Team change is hard at Netflix (not impossible) as hiring is team specific. You also have to stay in the current team for more than a year before attempting team transfer. Your manager can also fire you saying you are transferring because you are low performer in this team. So there’s that risk.
If you are a high performer and you are not a jerk, why would your manager want to fire you? His or her job is at jeopardy if the team doesn't deliver. You think the manager wants firing someone competent for fun?
If you think a person is performing low relative to their own past or to a potential that you see in them, alternative is putting someone on a PIP and getting them resources to overcome the reasons they aren’t performing well. Maybe moving teams or roles. I’ve advocated to let someone go before, and within 2 months of coaching, he was one of the better engineers on his team. That is a lot less expensive than firing him and starting a new search to fill the role.
This obviously isn’t always the case, but there is an economic reason to invest in (some) low performers.
Netflix has a different approach (“we’re a team not a family”) and I very much appreciate that they are so open about it. I’m not sure how accurate that Planet Money episode was, but it was great.
What you talk about does happen at Netflix. There are a significant portion of people that identify where they need to be better and get the support to make that happen. Ultimately, though, there is a point by which investing to have someone be better is not the right call and then we let them go. I love that we don't have to make that call over a year period, but rather can determine after 6 months and move on. It's best for everyone at that point.
Better to get a severance and time to look for a new job than putting you on a PIP and giving you false hope that you can turn things around... then realizing all that extra work you put in was for nothing because no amount of extra effort would have been enough. Haha, just kidding right?
Huh? This is how all businesses work. Maybe only the government has the ability to keep low performing employees. This isn't surprising to anyone is it? You wouldn't want the alternative where low performers are your peers would you?
I like to think missions come first. Nothing brings down morale more than news of casualties, especially multiple casualties. It gets everyone emotional, to lose focus, causes people to act reckless. That in the end, disrupts the mission. And in combat, I don’t think you pick to only protect your friends. In the mist of it, it can be hard to tell who’s who. Instincts takes over and you take that nade for anyone on you/your allies team, not just your friend.
People with personal life problems usually take leave or maybe slow down for a few months or half a year, they don’t slow down with “rest and vest” attitude like forever, and be like “pass time at work and get some good money”
Most low performers will stay low performers, especially for Netflix that everyone is hired as a senior. If one can't get the shit done after being in the industry for a decade, what's the odds that he or she improved a lot in a few months?
I don't have a problem with this, obviously it's quite a competitive environment so if you have a problem with that don't interview. There's also a reasonable chance you will be judged to be a low performer and get let go. If this is something your ego can't handle then again don't go to the interview