Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?
I'm considering accepting an opportunity at Netflix, but I'm not sure what the environment is like. Can someone at Netflix or who has worked at Netflix give an objective description as to what it's like there? I've read that everyone there is very smart, and the bar is set extremely high. I am very good (amongst the top people in every group I've worked at), but I'm not a god so I'm worried that I'm not good enough and that I will be let go within a month. Are things really that competitive and cutthroat as I've heard, given what I heard was a 10%/quarter turnover rate? I've known people who've worked at Netflix and have complained about some toxic policies. Some highlights I can recall: Unlimited ESPP rewards already wealthy employees. If you can afford to not take any pay for six months, you basically get a big bonus. I was told there was (and may still be) some kind of stack ranking system. Employees are fired if they're in the bottom x percent of performance reviews, even if they did a good job. In a company that's obsessed with everyone being exceptional, merely being adequate is considered failure. Unlimited vacation time is like an Orwellian joke. What it really means is you don't accrue PTO, can't cash it out like at other companies, and how much vacation you really get to take is a constant negotiation with management. The net effect is nobody takes any because nobody wants to be the guy who takes too much vacation, for fear of being perceived as one of those lower performing employees that gets let go each year. The whole thing sounded icky to me. I've worked for a company with "unlimited" vacation time, and "Orwellian joke" really is a great way to put it. In addition to everyone being careful not to be the guy who takes too much vacation (oh, except the slackers, of course), the value of an individual vacation day drops in everyone's eyes (no scarcity) and the result is that management develops an attitude that it's more acceptable to veto specific vacation dates. I've never had a proposed vacation denied at any other job but I saw it all the time at the "unlimited" vacation company (not only for myself but I heard coworkers complain about it). You can't just implement "unmetered vacation" and have it all work out -- it has to be part of a set of practices. For example, at Netflix as a manager I don't "veto" any proposed vacations, because my engineers do not propose vacations -- they tell me what time they're taking off. It's their job to make sure that's not going to be a surprise to anyone covering for them, and it's not my job to check that they've done that work. As for being careful not to be the guy who takes too much vacation ... putting aside the fact I have people reporting to me who aren't guys, there are people on my team who take two days of vacation a year; there are people on my team who take ~6 weeks of vacation per year. Nobody here seems to care much. It sounds to me like Netflix has this policy implemented better than the one I experienced and the ones I've heard nightmare stories about. I really like Travis CI's take on unlimited vacation time [0]. Probably won't ever catch on in the US though. 0: http://www.paperplanes.de/2014/12/10/from-open-to-minimum-va... That was a great article and I now have a good deal more respect for Travis CI. Thanks for posting. Seems like a very healthy way to look at things. I very much hope that this article gets around more. Unlimited vacation is a very (very) deceptive practice. Why would an unlimited ESPP be a bad thing, especially to the point of being a "toxic policy"? Does it really matter if someone else takes more advantage of that than you? I'd love that as a perk, even if it made someone else even more money. I care about me and my family, not how much someone else gets... Because any company which rewards people with extra money for deferring 100% of their comp for six months is elitist. The vast majority of their staff can't afford that and are therefore paid less for being poorer. But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. (Absent of course a decline in value of stock they bought under the ESPP and then held for the decline, but that's a risk inherent to investing, not a policy problem.) At worst it seems to be a policy that's beneficial to all, and some people choose to/are able to take more advantage of it. Doesn't meet my bar for toxic. > But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. That isn't the point. The point is it's immoral to pay people more simply because they are already wealthy. I now understand your point, and I thank you for that. It was escaping me, because I so strongly hold the opposing point of view. Thank you for explaining it. My view is that with an ESPP policy, Netflix helps align employee incentives with investor (and executive) incentives, and that makes those employees more likely to act as shareholders and take a pro-company mindset. It serves a legitimate purpose and is a hell of a perk, IMO. Taking that perk away hurts the poor employees more than the rich employees. Rich employees can invest in other stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. Granted, the ESPP is an excellent investment vehicle for them so it's not a surprise they take advantage of it, but if you kill the program, you hurt the very people you're trying to help. I'm not sure how removing a policy that "poor" employees can't take advantage of hurts them. The claim is that employees who can't afford to defer earnings are in effect denied access to the perk - it is therefore a regressive perk that widens the gap between those at the top end and those at the bottom end, regardless of how it shapes the overall incentive structure. It definitely serves a legitimate business purpose, but the employees who can't afford to participate are relatively worse off. Taking away the perk removes one source of imbalance, at a slight cost to the people who could afford to take advantage of it. But like you say, "rich" employees have many other investment options. How is paying people who are already wealthy more than people who are poor helping the poor? You're focusing on the wrong side (IMO). Paying poor people a bonus on top of money they save is helping the poor, mathematically and psychologically. I won't deny that rich can take more advantage of this program, but the working poor at Netflix also can. If you allow someone who is poor to save even $200 in an ESPP and give them a 15% bonus on top of that, you both introduce them to stocks as well as give them $30. True, if someone literally doesn't take any advantage of the program at all, taking it away hasn't hurt them. What I suspect instead happens (from having worked alongside good and hard-working "blue collar" workers) is that Bob figures out that if he just saves a little bit in this program that sounds too good to be true, he gets more money, then he does it and it works, then he tells Charlie and Dave about it (bragging about his maneuver, but also wanting his friends to get in on this), then Charlie tries it, then Dave is convinced, and they tell their two best friends at work, etc. Don't focus on how much money Chad and Biff are making from this program when considering eliminating it. Worry about the warehouse/call center worker and don't screw them over by killing it just as they're getting started saving. The warehouse worker or call center worker who started out saving just $200/yr in the program and spending that money on Christmas for his kids is way better off after a few years when he realizes he can start tightening his belt around a few 'little leaks' in his life and the cycle of pure paycheck-to-paycheck starts to get broken. Maybe he gets up to $200/quarter (about $3/workday), then $25/week... I'm not suggesting that such a program should be eliminated. Instead it should be reformed to benefit the majority more fairly rather than disproportionately benefitting those who are already wealthy. If poor employees can only afford to contribute 10% of their salary to ESPP, then everyone should be bound by that same limitation. This is typical at many other companies. Yes, but are they poorer than if they worked at a different company doing a similar job? I probably would not work for this kind of company, but I don't see it as 'wrong' just not the kind of company _I_ would work for. if the intent of the hiring policy is to get elite employees, then being elitist seems like an excellent plan s/elite/wealthy/ I currently work at Netflix. Opinions contained herein are entirely my own, sorry for any errors I typed this on a phone. Hope I can help you make a decision. More than willing to answer any questions, just reply here. :) The turnover rate you quoted is undoubtedly overstated or at least out of date. As for getting fired within a month, it won't happen. People are generally let go for a repeated pattern of major failures, and I can elaborate here if necessary. I work on an incredibly high performing team at Netflix and would consider myself to be one of the bottom percentile people on the team. I don't fear for my job, and I don't have to. I get amazing coworkers, and I learn a lot almost every day. I can really depend on my team. I'll address a few criticisms I've seen in other comments: Unlimited vacation: It's not BS. My manager recently told the team to take more vacation. I responded by letting him know that next week if be taking a month off. His response "just so we're both clear, you're telling me, not asking me, because I'd be really uncomfortable if you felt like you had to ask." Performance: Coworkers are generally really high performers, people genuinely care, but the tendency to hire senior employees means a lot of family people, and there is work life balance. There is no "stack ranking" system in place and to my knowledge there never has been. Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative net worth and no cash flow. You're taking risk in exchange for potential reward with the stock plan. Those who are rich can afford to take more risk, and they are taking more risk by putting more in. Sure maybe not risk of ruin but there is financial risk. What's wrong with this? it's been lucrative, I was considered a "heavy contributor" by company standards but pretty light compared to some I talked to. Expectations: You set and manage these for yourself. Sometimes you screw then up. This is sometimes a challenge for me, but it's entirely within my own influence. This quarter I set lower commitments and took the first month off. It hasn't been an issue. Again, opinions are my own. > Those who are rich can afford to take more risk, and they are taking more risk by putting more in. No, that's not how ESPP works. There is zero risk that they'll make less money than someone who takes it all as salary instead. It's a guaranteed significant increase in income. > Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative net worth and no cash flow. Yes, really. Wealthier Netflix employees are paid more than you because they can afford to defer 100% of their comp for six months. Right, I apologize, I had assumed you're familiar with the Netflix option program and just inappropriately using the term ESPP. We have a rather straightforward option program in which you purchase an immediately vesting option for 40% of the current market price, strike price is equal to the current market price. If the stock doesn't increase 40% (used to be 20%) then you don't just break even, that money is gone. There is risk. I wasn't asking really in terms of wether or not it was true, I'm asking really as in you somehow think this is some negative point against the company. I'm just not sure I understand how providing an opportunity to employees is a negative? The wealthier Netflix employees who accept more risk than me are paid more than me, because they're in a position to accept more risk. This sounds terrible. I can't find option data since they just had a split, but 40% sounds incredibly high even if the options don't expire. Furthermore the growth phase for NFLX likely has peaked, so what is the point in buying illiquid options? Can employees even sell these options? Furthermore at-the-market strike prices give you the least amount of leverage. What is the point of accepting the risk of complete loss and illiquidity when you can put up just 2.5x more and buy the damn shares outright? Interesting, thanks for the additional detail. I am not a critic of a system like that. However, that doesn't explicitly refute my point. Am I wrong in assuming that there are no limits on ESPP contribution? If that is indeed the case, then my argument stands. I don't believe there are any limits on the option program contribution. I'm not trying to refute your point, I imagine we just both have a philosophical difference in view on wether or not this is good. I'm not talking about options, which as you pointed out do indeed carry risk, I'm talking about ESPP. They're different programs. I don't think there is an ESPP at Netflix. Take this as authoritative: There's no ESPP at Netflix. I've been here long enough to remember when there was one :) Back when it was in place, was 100% contribution a thing or was my info incorrect for back then too? Could you elaborate about the kinds of things that constitute a major failure? Also, would you say your experience matches those of people you know on other teams with other managers? Repeated major failures would be something like regularly failing to deliver or making a critical error multiple times. A pattern of behavior that doesn't fit the culture, NOT a one off mistake. A great example of this would be the engineer who accidentally leaked House of Cards a week early. The only consequence is that a "process" was removed to make doing what he was trying to do easier. I don't think firing this individual was ever considered. He didn't have a pattern of carelessness and this just happened to be a mistake. I'm told the only "fuck up" that will get you fired on the spot for the first occurrence is sexual harassment. My experience is fairly consistent with others I know, there are of course a few exceptions. Though please do bear in mind I have a severe observation bias here. I interact with significantly more people that want to work at Netflix than I do those who don't. Tolerance of failure is different for ICs and Managers, partially because Managers tend to have such an ability to really screw things up in a way that isn't technical and has an impact on a bunch of other people in the company. The shortest IC tenure I've seen here was the result of being a brilliant jerk (which interviewers did not catch during the interview cycle (and I speak here as one of the people who interviewed this person)). The shortest Manager tenure I've seen here was noticeably shorter than this, and was the result of pissing off your engineers. I've not seen any IC here screw up on a technical level in such a way as to get fired for a first or even second screwup -- it really takes a pattern. My shortest IC termination was six months from hiring to termination. Certainly, it's one experience among many. Thanks for sharing your perspective. Thank you for your responses, I appreciate it! No problem, anything I can do to help you make your decision. I don't have any intimate knowledge of working at NetFlix, but holy crap they pay well: http://data.jobsintech.io/companies/netflix-inc/2015 PS - In almost every business I've ever encountered, people are a lot less godlike than you might perceive from an external view. Netflix pays only base salary, no stocks (RSUs). Total compensation at most other comparable companies has a significant stock component. The H1B reports only include base salary. So which they do pay well, no doubt, it is misleading to compare them to other companies based solely on H1B data (i.e., base salary). Yeah, we're a Los Gatos based company as well and we beat
those numbers. Without adding stock in the picture, just salary, bonuses, 401K and healthcare. But we're a company that is more like a co-op than your typical startup, as in, we're weird. Good weird, but weird. Fair enough, but personally I'd rather take the extra cash and manage my investments myself (and avoid the whole golden handcuffs business that I keep hearing about). I agree. I didn't mean to imply the Netflix model was poorer. I read the "Prevailing wage" column and thought "meh" then I realized I was reading the wrong column. Yeah, they do pay well. They don't pay well for "Senior Data Scientist", whatever they mean by that. I make more than that in a much lower cost of living area of the country. If you're good and what you do and have passed the interview process, you'll be fine. The fact that you are self-aware enough to understand the high performance culture and what it takes to meet that bar further indicates that you'll fit in. There isn't a stack rank system at all. Nothing like it in fact. High turn over - more so in the customer service side of the business; not the engineering side. Source: work at Netflix, interview a lot of engineering candidates, have thrown things at diab0lic. [edit 1]
Answering a few other questions: Unlimited vacation - yup it's true and encouraged. Being unable to cash out 2-3 weeks of vacation isn't something I see as a big deal. I take more time off than that. My co-workers not my managers make me feel bad about it. Why? They're on vacation. Work and work load - I choose much of what I work on. My job is to make things better at Netflix and I'm trusted to do so. High salary - many other companies put some of your remuneration in RSUs, options, or other vehicles that may create future benefit. So you're gambling and you have to stick around to see if it pays off. Netflix pays you your salary in cash right now; no golden handcuffs in the form of vesting schedules or stock levels. (There is an optional options program) Thrown work at me? Or are you in the CORE bullpen next to me and have physically thrown things over the wall at me? :P Both Well I appreciate all the swag and whiteboard markers that come over the wall. :) Do you have any tips for someone who will be interviewing for jobs in the near future? Not specifically Netflix but anywhere. I worked in two different groups while I was at Netflix. I loved it. The engineers on their team are consistently good and there is low tolerance for under performers. They take their culture seriously and their leadership is very strong. I'd be happy to work for them again in the future. Re: expectations about excess work. It's your own responsibility to set expectations about what you can get done and how quickly you can get it done. I was reasonably successful at this and took lots of time off the last year I was there, m wife had our first baby. Since I was able to set reasonable expectations I got a great raise that year, despite the time that I took off. > low tolerance for under performers I panic whenever I read stuff like this. What is an under performer? How do I know if I'm one? How can it be expected that everyone in an environment is a spectacular code ninja that does utterly awesome stuff all the time? I would like to know how they gauge performance too. Some cultures are about the perception of productivity, some are about actual productivity. Taken to an extreme, either case can make for a miserable work environment. > How can it be expected that everyone in an environment is a spectacular code ninja that does utterly awesome stuff all the time? it's not. you just have to find a range of tasks that you are able to perform at a high level at, and then make sure that your job is doing it, with confidence, day in and day out. if the link in the other comment is true, it seems like their senior salary range is 200-300k/year. in that range, the excuses stop, and the results begin, or you're fired, have a nice life. in the real world it actually begins at 100k but technology skews this figure much higher since basically anyone with a pulse and a keyboard can make 100k in this industry. And sometimes they may not even have a keyboard. Underperforming means whatever your manager wants it to mean. That is why it is bullshit. For instance, after I closed some wide open security holes (0.0.0.0/0 open, no authentication or access control to our $$$ stuff) after several days fair warning the team. My manager called that underperforming because some people don't read their email. I also got hit for doing extra work after hours because it was "not authorized" even though it saved thousands in identifying idle instances. Turns out my manager who recently transplanted from India was just trying to force me to work under another engineer who was still in India. Presumably once that guy had enough manufacture responsibility over here maybe the company would give him a visa. So shit like this is why so called performance management is bullshit. Performance is not doing what is in the best interest of the team or company. It is whatever is in the best interest for your manager. If you are an under performer and you don't know your management is failing you badly. I had three different managers while I was at Netflix (I switched teams once). 2 were great, 1 underperformed. The underperforming manager was not at Netflix for very long, which I appreciated. Thank you! May I ask why you decided to eventually leave? And do you regret leaving? I don't regret leaving. I've had a lot of fun working outside of Netflix. I do still hold Netflix in very high regard though and have a number of good friends still working there. If the conditions were right, I'd go back in a heartbeat. I had a manager who worked for Netflix, and looked into a position with them after leaving his group, asking him roughly this question. Unsatisfyingly, his answer was, it depends on who you work for. They have a "Freedom and Performance" culture that I'm sure you have seen a slideshow PDF for, and my old manager said that to some people this means, "Get your shit done and work when / wherever you want", to others it means, "Categorically you must work 80 hours a week". Since he was of the former school, I got the impression he worked for someone from the latter school. I didn't get an offer, so it was an easy choice. ;) Yea I'm working for a company focused on "autonomy" at the moment. What this has resulted in is calls at all different times of day and night, and an in inability to get questions answered during normal working hours. The calls themselves I don't mind so much, it's the stress of looking at your phone on a Saturday morning and seeing five messages "Hey are you awake?", "How about now? Time for a call?". Or messages at 9:30 at night, 2:00 in the morning, 8:00 AM. Instead of autonomy it's more a constant feeling of stress about work. Instead of freedom it ends up being prison. I've let them know I'm moving on in two weeks to greener pastures. I'll have an office instead of working from home, and a schedule. The heirarchy won't be flat thus reducing the number of people I have to communicate with. Everyone will be based in my hometown meaning I won't be communicating over google hangouts which I am so looking forward to. And as an engineer I sort of really dislike meeting with clients and I'm glad I won't have to anymore. I can explain things to people, and I will willingly, but to have to explain technical concepts to the nontechnical frequently and over hours of hangouts is tiring, uninteresting, and frustrating. Essentially, it's not for everyone. And that went a bit off topic, but beware the virtuous intention which paves your path to hell. In my experience, the corporation's culture matters much less than the personalities of those you frequently interact with, whether those people are colleagues, customers, or vendors. Don't work there but friends in ops industry have them as a client. Cool story: to handle EC2 performance variance, they systematically spin up some multiple of required capacity, have all the instances run a benchmark, then terminate the slowest and least deterministic. Pretty sure this was in this presentation http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/brendangregg/performance-tu... Netflix employee 2009-2011; built the user-facing parts of the original iPhone and Android apps. If you are an engineer--sorry, can't speak to other roles--and you can possibly swing a stint at Netflix, do so. They move fast, pay a ton, and you'll build a universally-loved product with some of the smartest people in the world. Oh, and with regards to unlimited vacation (or parental leave, for that matter): if your company offers it, take it. Especially if you are a manager, and 10x especially if you are a founder or C-level person. If leadership doesn't take vacation, vacation is Not Taken. Just out of interest, Did you ask about this in the interview, and if not, is there a reason you didn't? Did it feel "not very open"? Normally high paying jobs means they are trying to keep people and not the most fun jobs. Had a friend who worked at apple, went to netflix, and was back at apple within under a year. It may have been a move to get a raise with apple, but it could have also been a reflection on netflix. Take that for what you will. I have a colleague who did this too; and he explicitly says that he did it to get a massive raise at his current position. Since Netflix pays a lot, he was able to get his current employer match Netflix. I've been at Netflix for 2211 days (a little more than six years). Joined as an IT engineer, became an IT manager, became an engineer in the Product Engineering side, then became a manager in the Product Engineering side. At least two of the people who've already responded in this thread report to me. I wrote my impressions of six years at Netflix here: http://royrapoport.blogspot.com/2015/06/when-youre-having-fu... Don't treat HN like Quora. > I've known people > I don't have any intimate knowledge of > Don't work there but friends in ops industry have > I had a manager who > Had a friend who worked at apple, went to netflix Just to disagree with the hivemind here, at this point literally only one reply talks about actually working at Netflix personally and I would expect glassdoor, quora or linkedin to be a much better venue for this. Your attitude aside, this sentiment is likely correct. edit: 4 people showed up and are answering questions and being generous with their time. nvm, suck it Quora, HN it is. The "Ask" button up there at the top of the page suggests that asking questions is a legit usage of HN.