[hibikir]

Yes, it is pretty arbitrary. It's not very different than how Valve works, other than valve firing and hiring less people.

Now, what you have to take into consideration is that it's written as a contrast to all kinds of other places that run a command structure where it's your boss' job to figure out what is good for the company.

I don't know about you, but I have worked in those environments before. They attract bad people, as doing what seems better for the company, as opposed to what is better for your boss, is discouraged. I think of one example in my past, where the team worked for two months on a feature we knew our in house customer did not want, and would refuse to use. However, it helped our boss' internal political status, so the team tolled, the feature was unused, and in the end, half the team quit. Our former manager, however, is still doing well, because what is good for the company was not what was good for his boss either.

I often get recruiting calls from that company. They have trouble retaining good talent. Imagine that.

So the Netflix approach brings in people that are more dedicated to the business than the chain of command. There's a lot of very good engineers there, and it's a pool that is often untapped outside of startups. It's not a bad strategic decision, IMHO.

[AngusMcQuarrie]

Interesting how we're happy to talk about companies in a Positive light that do good things, but don't want to name names when it comes to the shit-holes we've ejected ourselves from.

[chc]

Is that really interesting? I would be surprised if people were more eager to make enemies and potentially make themselves look petty than to make friends.

[q2]

We expect freedom and transparency in all aspects across the world irrespective of personal/social costs associated with it. Isn't it? So why exception in this case? Just because it is unwritten and some sort of convention inducing hypothetical fear? Won't it help future employees from joining such toxic work places? Just a view point.