The keeper test sounds like old fashioned employee evaluation, but without any of the checks and balances that at least attempt to remove managers bias. Is the success.of Netflix due to their management philosophy? Or is it down to first mover advantage in the market? We will only see when they have peer competitors.
I think their success is only due to the lack of competetiton that they took for granted in the beginning. Now that new streaming networks are around, you may see that die down. Especially when hbomax and disney plus start doing high budget shows that connect their marvel and dc movies to streaming series. You probably wont see that begin to take off for another year or two though.
By success i assume you mean the money their investors put into it. It's because investors did not have anywhere else to invest. Netflix content is lousy and the keeper test doesn't make any sense because organisations cannot be built in a continuos high stress environment. I am sure Netflix did not start out as a place where only high performers were retained. It's probablg something they do now because they are under pressure from investors.
@@handycamlady by success I mean the $5bn operating profit they raked in last year... They only have about $500m in share capital, and $12bn debt, so it's not like shareholder capital is keeping them afloat - although that is fairly aggressive leveraging. Agree that the 'Keeper Test' is probably bunk. Would like to see a study on it. I suspect it leads to a very homogeneous workforce, because anyone who asks hard questions may be ousted. Some companies do run at a 'perpetual sprint', quite a few investment banks and consultancies do it (notably McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, JPM) but these are rarely places people spend a career. Jobs are often seen as a short term and challenging 'tour of duty' and alumni often go on to do great things. They key is that the company continues to excel as the people change.
@@bubsnicket thanks for helping me understand. Everyone does a keeper test in their own way. The high adrenaline and insecurity model probably works for Netflix right now I.e. if they are actually doing it because they want to be the Amazon of content. Employee longevity doesn't matter when all you want to do is create content at a monster speed. Every employee is around for 1 idea's worth time. But such an organisation may not survive a strategy shift.
Nowhere she states how Netflix is helping and supporting it’s employees to perform at that high level: it must perceivable only come out of the employee him/herself, nor does it state how diversity could help the company, a manager is inclined to only hire/keep yes-men/women, but not people who disagree and challenge him or her manager. How about clear task descriptions, coaching on how to be an efficient planner, time to explore and investigate a subject, resources and education budgets, or salary itself, is it above industry standard? It seems like a shark-tank where you can only survive for so long, and only do it because the name display’s so well on your resume. This video does not help the image of Netflix as a company. (Sadly, as I do similar product designs now and would like to experience their day to day process and their UX/Design blog is sometimes quite insightful) Also, where and how is it quantified that Netflix Teams are so elite? Saying they are doesn’t make it so. There is no comparison given to similar company’s performing less.
You said my thoughts better than I could. This woman comes across as peddling the CEO 'FunCorp' philosophy where burning through top talent to keep the dead machine alive is somehow seen as a liberating opportunity. I would never want to work for a corporation that gleefully slices off "average and adequate" employees. All that pressure must be why people want to move on to something better. That's a shitty corporate culture, not an elite business model. Unless elite means getting the shareholders $$$
@@seanpi - well, maybe she highlighted the wrong things... I’m not saying it is bad there, but one can all to easily spin it as a company that doesn’t really invest in people. Even if the idea is to keep people short term, what does Netflix do to make them ready for the step after, instead of squeezing people till they are empty. Again, not saying it is like that, she makes it seem like that, and if I were her manager, I would not be happy with her performance due to lack of insight into how she brings the message. (Maybe not a keeper?)
@@seanpi Opinions are based on observations. If she is an embassador is providing a 6 minute slice of Netflix, are we not entitled to form an opinion on it? If not, then the video is bunk.
That "keeper" test is useless at best. Could be named: "Did Crystal say something about me at the party?"-Test. "How hot is Crystal?-Test. Or am I a crappy manager who wants Crystal to stay even though she'd have a better life at that other company?" Test.. As long as she's doing her job, it's all about: how much do you like Crystal. Forming a personal/non-professional opinion is nearly inevitable between people who are closely working together. It's human nature to "judge" others from the first moments, and that judgement will likely follow someone for years.
Sounds like a place where you will always keep getting pressured to compete with everyone else in your team. All that was being talked about is geared towards profit and growth of the company. Nothing is mentioned about well-being or peace of mind of the employees. Humans are not robots. Younger people will one day become less energetic, change their values, or just simply getting old and want to settle down. They won't be able to keep up with their peak performance, breaking their own records all the time. What is Netflix going to do then? Fire those people?
This is rarely an ideal way of creating a work culture. People want stability because that will help them plan and get a loan. What this video is describing is a classic marked/performance oriented culture according to the much used model by Cameron and Quinn. But the error here, is that the woman in the video only has a foot into that culture, forgetting to actually take care of your employers will not work at all. You are actually not an olympic team, and people will not reach their potential regardless doing whatever task-oriented thing they do. That's just bad leader-bs talk.
Yeah, nowhere she describes how they achieve supporting it, the focus is only on leeching the employers until their creativity is done, but not investing in them. (I’m sure it’s really all not like that, but she gives a really one sided impression that can easily be explained as a shark tank rather then a creative talent pool that likes to explore and innovate)
I think this is a little misguided. Threatened managers with fragile egos will keep A players down, and the “keeper test” will make that worse. They’ll keep B+/A- performers who kiss their asses and fire everyone else. Netflix is Still better than most companies but LOTS of room for improvement. Cool video though, thanks :) good thoughts.
What I read in between the lines here is that Netflix gets its employees while their young and energetic hypes them up like crazy and then drops them in the dirt as soon as they inevitably start to slow down or hit a rough patch. Like a kid spitting out chewing gum and reaching for a new pack as soon as the flavor is out. Seems like an incredibly short sighted even childish approach to management to me and I wouldn't be surprised if it blows up in their face at some point. Also, dear "high performing team": Maybe up the quality of your video player and overall UI a bit. Because it still sucks.
My question is, if were teaching about High Performance Teams at a university, and the students must work in teams. How can you continue teaching this topic without telling your students "get rid of your classmates that are underperforming"?
I'm on early spree this week. A moment I'm taking to tell you that you look good, don't doubt yourself and just do what you love the most. You live one life and it's yours to live, so live it the way YOU want.
This is exactly what the problem is with the world today. Companies that have reached a level of success become role models for other companies that want the same level of success so those companies listen to videos like this and learn of the so called success methodologies that the mentor company allegedly used to get to the top and in turn deploy these methodologies verbatim in their own organisations without any regard for the actual circumstances of the people that been loyal hard workers. People who work to attain their goals of family, home, and hobbies which IMHO is the only reason to work hard and be loyal to your chosen company. Work should be a means to an end (with ethical, moral hard work and loyalty where deserved) but not an end to a means. The problem with the world today (and in the past but it's getting exponentially worse) is that work has become the goal and success is the driving force just for the sake of being successful instead of being the driving force to spend more time with family or friends or kids or to retire in peace without strife. Work as the only goal in life is akin to certain death in misery.
I was shocked that this mindset is still being promoted, high performers are usually people who learned from their mistakes...and got better, better hire bots if you want perfect employees.
Ok, so work on netflix probably sucks. Employees are humans, not machines. And you know what? Olympic teams training for 4 years for 1 competition, they are not in competitions all the time.
You have to be someone who either fully buys into the company's unspoken mantra, or fully disconnects one's self-ness from one's work. These are not good options.
30 seconds in and already its not right, He didn't start Netflix, he was an extremely early adopter and he did take over from the dude who did start it but yeah, didn't start it.
So "rank and yank" is bad because it creates a toxic team yet doing the very same thing under a different name is fine so long as it's not an official process and you get to play favourites and satisfy your own personal biases and agenda. Got it. Sounds like a toxic place to work if you ask me, with no longevity and a massive attrition rate with knowledge bleeding from the company at a frightening rate. Software development is not an Olympic sport and should not be played like one, it's nothing like it, this is a ridiculous way to run a company.
HEY NETFLIX! PUT RATINGS ON THE MOVIES! I'M SICK OF GOOGLING EVERY DAMN FILM TO SEE IF IT'S WORTH IT! EDIT: YOU RATE EACH OTHER HARDER THAN YOU RATE YOUR PRODUCT! ok i'm done.
The idea of more artistic freedom is great. The only problem is Netflix doesn't give that to their employees. They are restricted by political propaganda and corporate agendas. However, financially it's genius. Because Netflix is a month by month subscription, even if not all their content is what audiences want to see, they dont lose money. For example, you may hate some shows or movies, but you keep paying them every month for the rest of the stuff in their library. It's worth paying the monthly bill for crappy shows like the orange is new black because you still get access to things like cobra kai and dare devil. This would allow streaming networks in theory to give directors and actors more artistic freedom without losing money, but only if netflix didn't have a corrupt agenda to reshape culture.
I think it has more to do with the company going out of their way to hire people with a left wing bias. When you are more focused on injecting politics into all your content, the quality goes down because good story telling becomes a secondary goal and politics ruins art.
Both Stranger Things and Dark are good shows at Netflix. According to IMDB, they are both rated 8.8 shows. I liked Dark better, but Stranger Things is 3x more popular. Imagine making a great show, but not getting much credit or even getting fired because it wasn't popular.
I have one question which no one could answer me yet. If I have an output of 330%, how much should I earn? If I had an salary in my contract e.g. 50k for 100% outcome which is measured by storypoints, how much should I earn? I mean, if I change the company they need to hire 3.3 guys to get to my outcome. I am number one of 40 Software engineers and most of them like 80% have a storypoint outcome of 1 point or less per day, where I am over one full year in average by 3.3 storypoints/ day. I mean, logically I should earn 3.3 times more than now, but of course nobody would accept that, but why? Even if I ask for a raise of 100%, they still save 1.3 employees it would be declined. So if I would get a raise by 20% I should only do an output of 1.2 storypoints per day, right? I mean, if I get just 20% more, why should I do 330% and not just stop to work after 3-4 hours, and they still would be happy...so effort is useless. The only one who profits is the company.
It's not a meritocracy basically, despite masquerading as one. The only thing putting out more than what's expected of you does is create a buffer zone where the company will continue to give you incremental raises, and will be more hesitant to lay you off as opposed to someone else. Basically non-tangible benefits. Ideally it would be merit based but I do feel like nowadays you're moreso just being paid for your time than paid for your effort and productivity and the employers really couldn't care less so long as everyone averages out to what's expected. They might say they care and want everyone to put out 200% but how often is it that employers will deliberately go out of their way to congratulate or compensate stellar performance? You'll probably like get gift cards or employee of the month or maybe first dibs on the next promotion or something. In this way, it's optimal to be at 120% or 140% rather than higher, because at least then you'll break even with your effort to benefits ratio, especially over time, and still stand out as better than the average workers. Either that or you do 300% for the sole purpose of playing the resume and work experience game to jockey for a better job off the merit of your reputation.
OMG why are you not focusing on taking what you call "mediocre" employees and finding out how to help them reach their full potential!?!? It's so so so toxic, and it's perfect for capitalist pursuit, and HORRIBLE for workers. You could be ruining lives, I wonder what the depression rates are for ex-Netflix employees, there should be a study done to determine if working for Netflix leads to worse life outcomes for people.
Wow, talk about toxic culture! One of the key things to look at in companies evaluation is management quality. I need to sell nflx fast, before first mover advantage is over...
Hey dude, this is 2020. People who aren't even traders make money from the crypto and forex markets and moreover there are already financial analysts and trading experts(PhDs) who have shelled out theories and ideas for years on how bit coin technically grows.
If you think you're too lazy to trade or learn how to trade, just know I have some friends who invest in a platform where and experts devotes their time and help them trade and they get paid profit every week
"Why are Netflix teams so incompetent?" Should be the next one, considering the company is floundering hard with woke politics and terrible adaptations of established franchises.
👋👍 If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. The best young entrepreneur ever @evenkingsfall (his insta) says the key is you have to THINK BIG to WIN BIG! Always keep that thought process! Looking forward to your next video ✌️
What topics should we tackle next?
Subscribe for weekly videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
Video starts at 5:56 before it there is an advertisement of Netflix
hhhh yeah
😂😂😂😂
The keeper test sounds like old fashioned employee evaluation, but without any of the checks and balances that at least attempt to remove managers bias. Is the success.of Netflix due to their management philosophy? Or is it down to first mover advantage in the market? We will only see when they have peer competitors.
I think their success is only due to the lack of competetiton that they took for granted in the beginning. Now that new streaming networks are around, you may see that die down. Especially when hbomax and disney plus start doing high budget shows that connect their marvel and dc movies to streaming series. You probably wont see that begin to take off for another year or two though.
By success i assume you mean the money their investors put into it. It's because investors did not have anywhere else to invest. Netflix content is lousy and the keeper test doesn't make any sense because organisations cannot be built in a continuos high stress environment. I am sure Netflix did not start out as a place where only high performers were retained. It's probablg something they do now because they are under pressure from investors.
@@handycamlady by success I mean the $5bn operating profit they raked in last year... They only have about $500m in share capital, and $12bn debt, so it's not like shareholder capital is keeping them afloat - although that is fairly aggressive leveraging.
Agree that the 'Keeper Test' is probably bunk. Would like to see a study on it. I suspect it leads to a very homogeneous workforce, because anyone who asks hard questions may be ousted.
Some companies do run at a 'perpetual sprint', quite a few investment banks and consultancies do it (notably McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, JPM) but these are rarely places people spend a career. Jobs are often seen as a short term and challenging 'tour of duty' and alumni often go on to do great things. They key is that the company continues to excel as the people change.
@@bubsnicket thanks for helping me understand. Everyone does a keeper test in their own way. The high adrenaline and insecurity model probably works for Netflix right now I.e. if they are actually doing it because they want to be the Amazon of content. Employee longevity doesn't matter when all you want to do is create content at a monster speed. Every employee is around for 1 idea's worth time. But such an organisation may not survive a strategy shift.
Nowhere she states how Netflix is helping and supporting it’s employees to perform at that high level: it must perceivable only come out of the employee him/herself, nor does it state how diversity could help the company, a manager is inclined to only hire/keep yes-men/women, but not people who disagree and challenge him or her manager. How about clear task descriptions, coaching on how to be an efficient planner, time to explore and investigate a subject, resources and education budgets, or salary itself, is it above industry standard? It seems like a shark-tank where you can only survive for so long, and only do it because the name display’s so well on your resume.
This video does not help the image of Netflix as a company. (Sadly, as I do similar product designs now and would like to experience their day to day process and their UX/Design blog is sometimes quite insightful)
Also, where and how is it quantified that Netflix Teams are so elite? Saying they are doesn’t make it so. There is no comparison given to similar company’s performing less.
You said my thoughts better than I could. This woman comes across as peddling the CEO 'FunCorp' philosophy where burning through top talent to keep the dead machine alive is somehow seen as a liberating opportunity. I would never want to work for a corporation that gleefully slices off "average and adequate" employees. All that pressure must be why people want to move on to something better. That's a shitty corporate culture, not an elite business model. Unless elite means getting the shareholders $$$
She spoke for five minutes not an hour. How do your expect her to cover everything in a short space of time.
@@seanpi - well, maybe she highlighted the wrong things... I’m not saying it is bad there, but one can all to easily spin it as a company that doesn’t really invest in people. Even if the idea is to keep people short term, what does Netflix do to make them ready for the step after, instead of squeezing people till they are empty. Again, not saying it is like that, she makes it seem like that, and if I were her manager, I would not be happy with her performance due to lack of insight into how she brings the message. (Maybe not a keeper?)
@@ivarbrouwer197 perhaps the video editor did or maybe that’s what she wanted to specifically talk about. But you my friend are conclusion jumping.
@@seanpi Opinions are based on observations. If she is an embassador is providing a 6 minute slice of Netflix, are we not entitled to form an opinion on it? If not, then the video is bunk.
That "keeper" test is useless at best. Could be named: "Did Crystal say something about me at the party?"-Test. "How hot is Crystal?-Test. Or am I a crappy manager who wants Crystal to stay even though she'd have a better life at that other company?" Test.. As long as she's doing her job, it's all about: how much do you like Crystal.
Forming a personal/non-professional opinion is nearly inevitable between people who are closely working together. It's human nature to "judge" others from the first moments, and that judgement will likely follow someone for years.
Sounds like a place where you will always keep getting pressured to compete with everyone else in your team. All that was being talked about is geared towards profit and growth of the company. Nothing is mentioned about well-being or peace of mind of the employees. Humans are not robots. Younger people will one day become less energetic, change their values, or just simply getting old and want to settle down. They won't be able to keep up with their peak performance, breaking their own records all the time. What is Netflix going to do then? Fire those people?
Yes
Please stop two ads
This is rarely an ideal way of creating a work culture. People want stability because that will help them plan and get a loan. What this video is describing is a classic marked/performance oriented culture according to the much used model by Cameron and Quinn. But the error here, is that the woman in the video only has a foot into that culture, forgetting to actually take care of your employers will not work at all. You are actually not an olympic team, and people will not reach their potential regardless doing whatever task-oriented thing they do. That's just bad leader-bs talk.
It's an interesting model, though I think balance is critical to give structure and freedom
Yeah, nowhere she describes how they achieve supporting it, the focus is only on leeching the employers until their creativity is done, but not investing in them. (I’m sure it’s really all not like that, but she gives a really one sided impression that can easily be explained as a shark tank rather then a creative talent pool that likes to explore and innovate)
I think this is a little misguided. Threatened managers with fragile egos will keep A players down, and the “keeper test” will make that worse.
They’ll keep B+/A- performers who kiss their asses and fire everyone else.
Netflix is Still better than most companies but LOTS of room for improvement.
Cool video though, thanks :) good thoughts.
Most companies have to settle for "competent".
What I read in between the lines here is that Netflix gets its employees while their young and energetic hypes them up like crazy and then drops them in the dirt as soon as they inevitably start to slow down or hit a rough patch.
Like a kid spitting out chewing gum and reaching for a new pack as soon as the flavor is out.
Seems like an incredibly short sighted even childish approach to management to me and I wouldn't be surprised if it blows up in their face at some point.
Also, dear "high performing team": Maybe up the quality of your video player and overall UI a bit. Because it still sucks.
Netflix using young, hyped up employees and spitting them out explains why most of their shows are just infantilising bullshit
YES
Man, did you guys pick a bad time to lavish praise upon Netflix.
My question is, if were teaching about High Performance Teams at a university, and the students must work in teams. How can you continue teaching this topic without telling your students "get rid of your classmates that are underperforming"?
high adrenaline meaning not balanced, not human, abusive, exploitation
Netflix model of high performing teams is like late stage capitalism to the furthest extent
I'm on early spree this week. A moment I'm taking to tell you that you look good, don't doubt yourself and just do what you love the most. You live one life and it's yours to live, so live it the way YOU want.
That’s nice, but has zero to do with with the video you posted to, therefore comes off as spam.
@@jnnx that's some high standards for spam comments.
This is exactly what the problem is with the world today. Companies that have reached a level of success become role models for other companies that want the same level of success so those companies listen to videos like this and learn of the so called success methodologies that the mentor company allegedly used to get to the top and in turn deploy these methodologies verbatim in their own organisations without any regard for the actual circumstances of the people that been loyal hard workers. People who work to attain their goals of family, home, and hobbies which IMHO is the only reason to work hard and be loyal to your chosen company. Work should be a means to an end (with ethical, moral hard work and loyalty where deserved) but not an end to a means. The problem with the world today (and in the past but it's getting exponentially worse) is that work has become the goal and success is the driving force just for the sake of being successful instead of being the driving force to spend more time with family or friends or kids or to retire in peace without strife. Work as the only goal in life is akin to certain death in misery.
I was shocked that this mindset is still being promoted, high performers are usually people who learned from their mistakes...and got better, better hire bots if you want perfect employees.
Ok, so work on netflix probably sucks.
Employees are humans, not machines.
And you know what? Olympic teams training for 4 years for 1 competition, they are not in competitions all the time.
Doesn’t it then turns the “evaluation” into a very subjective test which is prone to manipulation however the manager sees fit?
Nah they have nonsensical investors who pour money into a non profitable asset.
so? The economy isn’t real either.
Sounds like a toxic place to work.
Bell Labs had a similar "anarchy" and they ended up winning nine Nobel prizes, lets see how many Netflix gets
You have to be someone who either fully buys into the company's unspoken mantra, or fully disconnects one's self-ness from one's work. These are not good options.
Can Netflix update their playlists? When am I gonna get the rest of my seasons?
Why is Netflix’s own content so incredibly mediocre?
Netflix and high performing in the same sentence 😂
Does anyone need to do the keeper test to know the results of it? Probably not... Its a complete no brainer... jesus this is not even a small think..
30 seconds in and already its not right, He didn't start Netflix, he was an extremely early adopter and he did take over from the dude who did start it but yeah, didn't start it.
Why is she so angry? jeez calm down lady! go for a hike or something!
So "rank and yank" is bad because it creates a toxic team yet doing the very same thing under a different name is fine so long as it's not an official process and you get to play favourites and satisfy your own personal biases and agenda. Got it.
Sounds like a toxic place to work if you ask me, with no longevity and a massive attrition rate with knowledge bleeding from the company at a frightening rate.
Software development is not an Olympic sport and should not be played like one, it's nothing like it, this is a ridiculous way to run a company.
HEY NETFLIX! PUT RATINGS ON THE MOVIES! I'M SICK OF GOOGLING EVERY DAMN FILM TO SEE IF IT'S WORTH IT!
EDIT: YOU RATE EACH OTHER HARDER THAN YOU RATE YOUR PRODUCT! ok i'm done.
The idea of more artistic freedom is great. The only problem is Netflix doesn't give that to their employees. They are restricted by political propaganda and corporate agendas. However, financially it's genius. Because Netflix is a month by month subscription, even if not all their content is what audiences want to see, they dont lose money. For example, you may hate some shows or movies, but you keep paying them every month for the rest of the stuff in their library. It's worth paying the monthly bill for crappy shows like the orange is new black because you still get access to things like cobra kai and dare devil. This would allow streaming networks in theory to give directors and actors more artistic freedom without losing money, but only if netflix didn't have a corrupt agenda to reshape culture.
Hmmm. Maybe that lack of control has led to their content becoming so poor over the last couple of years?
I think it has more to do with the company going out of their way to hire people with a left wing bias. When you are more focused on injecting politics into all your content, the quality goes down because good story telling becomes a secondary goal and politics ruins art.
I mean cuties lost them money, but they refused to get rid of the title because a woman directed that pedo film.
Olympic Teams retire very early!
Potentiaaaaaaal
Both Stranger Things and Dark are good shows at Netflix. According to IMDB, they are both rated 8.8 shows. I liked Dark better, but Stranger Things is 3x more popular. Imagine making a great show, but not getting much credit or even getting fired because it wasn't popular.
Wouldn't work there, wouldn't adopt anything she has said within my company. Processes are bad? Talk about amazon about their operations.
This... sounds like a recipe for burnout.
I have one question which no one could answer me yet. If I have an output of 330%, how much should I earn? If I had an salary in my contract e.g. 50k for 100% outcome which is measured by storypoints, how much should I earn? I mean, if I change the company they need to hire 3.3 guys to get to my outcome. I am number one of 40 Software engineers and most of them like 80% have a storypoint outcome of 1 point or less per day, where I am over one full year in average by 3.3 storypoints/ day. I mean, logically I should earn 3.3 times more than now, but of course nobody would accept that, but why? Even if I ask for a raise of 100%, they still save 1.3 employees it would be declined. So if I would get a raise by 20% I should only do an output of 1.2 storypoints per day, right? I mean, if I get just 20% more, why should I do 330% and not just stop to work after 3-4 hours, and they still would be happy...so effort is useless. The only one who profits is the company.
It's not a meritocracy basically, despite masquerading as one. The only thing putting out more than what's expected of you does is create a buffer zone where the company will continue to give you incremental raises, and will be more hesitant to lay you off as opposed to someone else. Basically non-tangible benefits.
Ideally it would be merit based but I do feel like nowadays you're moreso just being paid for your time than paid for your effort and productivity and the employers really couldn't care less so long as everyone averages out to what's expected. They might say they care and want everyone to put out 200% but how often is it that employers will deliberately go out of their way to congratulate or compensate stellar performance?
You'll probably like get gift cards or employee of the month or maybe first dibs on the next promotion or something.
In this way, it's optimal to be at 120% or 140% rather than higher, because at least then you'll break even with your effort to benefits ratio, especially over time, and still stand out as better than the average workers.
Either that or you do 300% for the sole purpose of playing the resume and work experience game to jockey for a better job off the merit of your reputation.
@@occultninja4 Thanks for the answer!
Sounds totally toxic... "We'll exploit you in your twenties, and when you burn out, you can go"
The woman’s voice makes it hard to get through this video. That drawl and cadence....
I don't remember subscribing to this channel. Whats wrong with youtube?
The idea that some people are talented and some people are not is fucking so reductive to the human experience.
OMG why are you not focusing on taking what you call "mediocre" employees and finding out how to help them reach their full potential!?!? It's so so so toxic, and it's perfect for capitalist pursuit, and HORRIBLE for workers. You could be ruining lives, I wonder what the depression rates are for ex-Netflix employees, there should be a study done to determine if working for Netflix leads to worse life outcomes for people.
Wow, talk about toxic culture! One of the key things to look at in companies evaluation is management quality. I need to sell nflx fast, before first mover advantage is over...
These people are obviously being abused, and they are happy to be.
This is fucking terrible. This is not sustainable. This makes the employee as recyclable as paper. This can lead to many lawsuits.
Too bad everything Netflix touches becomes garbage.
This is psychotic.
I don't know who needs to hear this, you've got to stop saving money. Invest some part of it, if you really want financial freedom.
Invest in bitcoin, gold, silver, buy stock, forex market, commodities. Just invest and save yourself.
Hey dude, this is 2020. People who aren't even traders make money from the crypto and forex markets and moreover there are already financial analysts and trading experts(PhDs) who have shelled out theories and ideas for years on how bit coin technically grows.
Exactly, Very Good point ✌🏻
If you think you're too lazy to trade or learn how to trade, just know I have some friends who invest in a platform where and experts devotes their time and help them trade and they get paid profit every week
Honestly I will love to get in touch with this expert, how do I go about that?
"Why are Netflix teams so incompetent?" Should be the next one, considering the company is floundering hard with woke politics and terrible adaptations of established franchises.
Elite? Cuties?
Oh boy here come the QAnon/KeineAhnung folks
@@Crocalu Uh oh, Assumption dude in the house.
Sounds like a crap place to work.
Didn't they put a move out about pedophilia? Probably not the best company to talk about..
The netflix hoax is gonna burst into nothingness.
What do you mean?
@@VisualiseTheFun netflix is bad, see their board and how they capatilize on the (recent) past. It's just a tv tool, ultimate pushers.
Some people love the smell of their own BS. I'd hate to work for Netflix even though I'm as autistic as the next genius.
Sounds like a nightmare, no thanks
👋👍 If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. The best young entrepreneur ever @evenkingsfall (his insta) says the key is you have to THINK BIG to WIN BIG! Always keep that thought process! Looking forward to your next video ✌️
Processeeeeees is not a word! Process, processes. It’s not like crisis, crises. Stop with your pseudo intellectual BS.
Sounds v inhumane
I don’t anything about how they do it! 👎🏼
gg, from genuine interesting ideas to shitshow of a idea being shown. This is the last straw.
Can you explain what you mean?