You can also wonder whether the extreme talent culling is sensible or effective (we’re not even asking about humane). “Rebecca” sums up this point of view:
I see a lot of good things in here however, I wonder at constantly getting rid of good people who’s technical skills fall behind. Whatever happened to developing talent? There’s an acknowledgement that they were good employees who’ve proved their commitment to the company but instead of spending a little time – and some of that money that would’ve gone into severance – on training, the answer seems to be to exit them. How’s that good talent management?
Others seemed to thrive in the free-form environment, such as “Barry:”
As an eleven year former employee at Netflix I can say without a doubt this approach allowed Netflix to scale without bloated headcount. I can’t speak to other areas of the company but in my department, there was no culture of fear. I didn’t have a job. I got to wake up everyday and work on interesting problems with smart people. That’s how I felt. The culture also meant that wasting time on internal politics was at an absolute minimum. Again, I am speaking from my experience but I know a lot of others who feel the same way.
My bottom line?
Apologies in advance to any HR professionals in the audience, but over the course of my career I’ve observed a steady, now slower, now faster, slide in the direction of more rules, more constraints, more paperwork, and more perfunctory but content-free hoops to be jumped through—by HR, by management, by employees, by everyone. Some is no doubt due to increasing regulation (broadening antidiscrimination regulations and cultural expectations, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc.), admirable to be sure but which must be complied, yet most of it, I believe, is attitudinal.
From the notion of “zero tolerance” in our schools to police defaulting to SWAT teams when one patrol car of backup used to suffice, to cordons sanitaire around every major and many minor public events, the inexorable logic of compliance seems to be that more is better and less is inexcusable, lest something slip through the cracks—and then there will be h*&# to pay.
The problem is that benefits come with costs. Resources are not infinite, and opportunity costs are real.
Enough is often, well, enough.
So I warmly applaud Netflix’s reinventing HR. Don’t worry for a moment that it could be taken too far, because I have news for you: At the moment, we are at undetectable risk of that.
This approach to talent management will no doubt produce great results in the short term, but I wonder if it will really improve a firm’s talent pool for the long term.
The premise of this approach is that technology is ever changing, and the company should not be bashful about moving people in and out in order to keep humming at the highest level as the process of change takes place. So new employees come in ready to use the latest tech and contribute at a high level right away, and they leave as soon as they are no longer able to contribute.
But does a law firm work that way? Do your associates come in ready to contribute at a high level right away? Clearly not! Do they reach a point where they can’t contribute anymore because the substance of their work has changed and they can’t keep up? Some yes, but this is rarely the case when speaking of associates – often firms lose talented associates who can still contribute, but they are asked to leave for other reasons (i.e. they are not on the partner track, and probably because the partnership has not made an effort to get them onto it). If you’re talking about partners, then of course this happens, but they are the ones making the personnel decisions and are highly unlikely to choose the exit for themselves.
Reducing useless bureaucracy will assist any organization (especially those that have implemented it in order to avoid facing the hard realities that it does such a good job of obscuring). But I have zero confidence that managing partners will take that message away. Odds are, they will read an article like this and respond by (a) increasing bureaucracy in order to “measure performance” better (has there ever been a more futile refuge for the ineffective?) and (b) wringing ever more hours out of their already overworked associates while reducing what little job security is left for them (after all, aren’t they supposed to “cull to keep only the A Team?”).
If you want to reinvent HR, you have to start by knowing what you want to achieve with your talent. Do you want to build a lasting business by putting in the hard work to train the next generation, or do you want to pick the last bits of meat off the bone before you retire? Make sure your talent management matches what you’re trying to achieve.
A friend I’ve known for years but who prefers anonymity writes from Europe:
Thanks, David! I know who you are….