Netflix is over 15 years old, has floundered numerous times and reinvented itself at least once while retaining the same management. I don't know if this post is an "HR approved Netflix puff piece", but your comment is a textbook middlebrow dismissal.

I understand why you would be skeptical, it seems like more rah-rah crap from a successful tech company. However, it is not a puff piece, it's completely accurate. Political "warfare" or other malicious actions are not tolerated at any level at Netflix. Netflix only looks for sharp people that are also a cultural fit. If you are smart and negative, you won't last long.

I don't think that counters what OP is saying. Netflix is publicly traded. Their CEO, who sets the cultural tone, only lasts as long as the shareholders allow him to last. If they start floundering for enough consecutive quarters, I guarantee you Reed will be gone and a PHB who will "maximize shareholder value" will replace him.

If the Mikes can be ousted from RIM, you can bet your rear that Hastings can be ousted from Netflix. And once "maximizing shareholder value" becomes the goal, "culture" becomes an afterthought.

Well, yeah, if the company isn't doing well and leadership changes, obviously that'll trickle down to employees and culture. No one said it'll be like this forever at Netflix, but it does sound like they put a heavy emphasis on "culture" now.

Exactly. Because anything can happen, Netflix could be a terrible place to work in the future, and therefore it is definitely not a good place to work now.

That's not the point, and not what OP or I said. He said that the benefits Brendan describes are more a result of being a growing company than "being Netflix". He didn't say it wasn't a good place to work now, and he didn't say it would be a terrible place to work in the future. You did.

The part I'm skeptical about is, "Adequate performance gets a generous severance packet."

Can't say I've ever heard of an organization where that's true. Typically, adequate performance means no promo, and being first in line for dismissal if the order comes down to cut staff.

Firing someone who is trying and doing sort of OK-ish but not actually well sounds hard. I would expect all but the hardest of hearts to be reluctant to dismiss a lowish performer, preferring to hope that experience and mentoring will yield a turnaround. People have empathy, after all. (Well, except for the sociopaths...)

In fact, to actually get managers to get rid of the merely adequate, you'd probably have to institute something like an up-or-out system, so managers could blame the system rather than themselves or the workers when the merely adequate got shoved out the door.

Yes, I never trust what company people say about their workplaces, unless: I know them, it's in private and they have sharply critical minds. (Usually called "disgruntled".)

- If I don't know them, they have little incentive to tell me the truth.

- If it's not private, then selection bias: glowing affirmations (or pseudo-critique: "Yeah we have our problems, but...") will obviously be the voices we hear. Not only are those maybe rewarded, but cold enough critiques are swiftly punished. For obvious reasons.

- If they're not sharply critical types, they miss what should be obvious, because they drink the koolaid or are just plain fine with whatever silliness.

(Why the emphasis on critique? Because one's job is solving problems, and real companies have such egregious problems. I'll accept fairly wrong critique in preference to correct bragging, because critique's usually missing and at least something not-too-wrong is a string to pull on during research.)

Critical type here. There's something missing from his review. The company seems to fire people on the spot for little mistakes, from what I've read above. There has to be a lot more dirt, he just hasn't encountered yet.

Generous severances (of the sort that might accompany the dirt) usually come with a generous non-disclosure agreement, so that makes sense.

I liked the information about salary negotiation.