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.
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.
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.
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.