To paraphrase: "I pledge my allegiance to the Borg and will always give of myself and care for it above all else including my own needs."
Sounds like a factory to me. You guys who vote me down are just so very delusional about the information economy's greatness. LOL.
Well, yeah, it pretty much does, if the company actually follows the personnel-retention guidelines in that slide deck. Your work at such a company is graded on a curve, whether you like it or not, and if you don't outperform your peers, you end up looking "only adequate." Meanwhile, your peers are talented twenty-something kids who cheerfully work 60-hour weeks, and you're not going to be able to keep up for long since there's going to be (again, presumably, under the stated guidelines) fresh meat coming in all the time.
As my other comment to elq pointed out, this seems a bit OTT for a company whose mission is, at the end of the day, to mail out a bunch of DVDs without screwing up too much. It's more like selling sugar water than changing the world, and I'm not sure I see the point in killing yourself for it.
I knew this was something special when it started out with an example of Enron's corporate values. Too many companies have corporate values printed on little cards, back of pamphlets or even "chiseled on the marble on the main lobby."
I think about two thirds the slides stressed on hiring the best talent possible, having high performers and keeping high performers. I have to agree. One of the most important things you can do, especially at a smaller company, is hire well.
One thing that is lacking is a reference to motivation. Compensating people well is important, but you also need a sense of impact and growth. See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (a little out dated but a great place to start):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslows_hierarchy_of_needs
I'd say pay is at the lower levels. At the higher levels: -People need to feel appreciated (part of that is well compensated). -People need to feel like they are making a difference. (Your job adds value) -People need to like they're growing. It's not just about getting Sr. added to your job title but actually your learning something and self-actualizing.
Not all companies are like that, and that's why working at Netflix takes a bit of a mindset re-org.
I think the work place is one place of many where you can grow and prove yourself. It's a great place to learn new things, test your theories and be creative. A company should nurture that.
I put away a start-up idea to work there. It was worth it.
Context vs. Control.
"constant ass holes" equates to "jerks". How does the "brilliant" part come in to play?
pg said "The problem is, not all these people are really jerks. Some just don't like being told what to do."
This interpretation makes sense. I've seen this happen in large companies. "He is brilliant and very good at his job, BUT he doesn't take orders (blindly)".
I don't know if I've ever been so impressed by a corporate document.
It sounds so civilized, yet my worry would be that people end up not taking enough time off due to a combination of peer pressure and indifference. In my experience I've found there are a set of people who always struggle to use up a given vacation allowance, and in a situation where there is no allowance I could see the natural behaviour of these people creating pressure on those who enjoy taking time off to take a lot less.
I find this to be revealing of the culture this document is trying to express : the focus on the people. I don't think you can find that in many workplaces.
Their Jobs page quotes Godfather: "I will make an offer he can't refuse"
Awesome.
One thing that stood out for me in that document was their analysis of how company growth forces the reduction of creativity in the workforce by the implementation of rigid processes.
Even more impressive is their solution to avoiding this problem: Just keep hiring more talented people.
Dear Netflix: can you please open software development offices in NJ or NY? Please?
I think Yahoo found the bizarro world version of this.
