Same experience with that chief talent officer. I think it was supposed to be a pure sell interview, but it ended up being super tacky and uncomfortable. She went on and on about how much money they had. She went on and on about firing 51% of the people every year - which is not only unsustainable, but not supported by any kind of evidence of routinely culled NF engineers looking for work in the Bay Area. She was so busy congratulating herself and being smug I don't even know why I was in the room. The rest of the interviewers were great.
In the following days, they followed up with an offer that wasn't an offer - they would make an offer only if I said yes, but otherwise they weren't going to make an offer. They had the hiring manager call me a bunch of times. They tried to get me on a sell call with the ceo. They disparaged the other companies I was talking to. Meh. Also, they were title crazy - everyone in management I spoke to was either a director or a vice-president or a chief of something.
Netflix models employment like a professional sports engagement, where performance is regularly reviewed in context and persons who no longer contribute to the "team dynamic" are "traded", i.e., fired, to go find a "team" in which their contributions are a better fit.
Everyone knows this because Netflix released a big presentation about it a while ago. They keep "top performers" only as long as they are top performance from Netflix's perspective, and then dismiss them with a "generous severance".
It's definitely an interesting way to do employment.
I agree that it sounds like contracting. They're trying to normalize it, I think. Most people won't be contractors because contractors have to pay extra taxes, buy their own benefits, and have no job security. Netflix takes care of these first two and makes the last one softer by giving a "generous severance" while the ex-employee finds a new home (I'm not sure on the specifics of how that works; maybe a NF employee who has been "traded" can offer detail (though he's probably contractually forbidden from doing so)).
What's basically clear is that the candidates complaining here a) didn't do their basic f-ing homework, and b) are seriously misrepresenting Netflix views on letting people go.
Not I agree with that part of Netflix culture (and it would pretty much be illegal in most Western countries), but there is a clear logic behind it, and I seriously doubt they skipped that part in the interview.
What's basically clear is that the candidates complaining here (...) are seriously misrepresenting Netflix views on letting people go.
You can assume the posters here are being malicious, or that they're honestly telling what they understood from the interview. If the latter, then I'd argue it's Netflix fault for failing to leave the right impression.
