How Netflix reinvented HR to make an “A” player-centered … · 2015-07-14 · This material is...

This material is exclusively prepared for Ringle Customer

0 본 자료는 저작권 법에 의해 보호되는 저작물로, Ringle 사에 저작권이 존재합니다. 해당 자료에 대한 무단 복제/배포를 금하며,

해당 자료로 수익을 얻거나 이에 상응하는 혜택을 누릴 시 Ringle과 사전 협의가 없는 경우 고소/고발 조치 될 수 있습니다.

Material for your English session

How Netflix reinvented HR to make an

“A” player-centered organization

Ringle 1 on 1 Online English Communication Coaching Service




Required preparations before the session (For Student)

Step 1: Please read a summary (Written in Korean on page 2)

Step 2: Please read today’s article (on page 3~9)

Title of today’s article: How Netflix Reinvented HR

Step 3: Please view following video clip(links on page 10)

#1 Video: How Netflix Revolutionized Human Resources

(You can the writer of the today’s article interview)

#2 Video: Who we are - Work at Netflix

(You can see interviews with 5 current Netflix employees)

Step 4: Please check 9 key questions listed on page 11~14

Step 5: Please study key business-related expressions and terms on

page 15~23

Step 6: Please finish 2 assignments before English tutoring session

Assignment 1: Prepare brief summary of this article (up to 2

minutes presentation)

Assignment 2: Build your own perspectives and short answers for

each key question (up to 1~2 minutes speech for each question)




[자료 및 논제 소개]

‘97년 온라인 비디오/DVD 대여업자에서 출발한Netflix 는 3번의 대 격변을 거쳐, 현재 전 세계에서

가장 영향력 있는 미디어 제작-유통 사업자로 성장 하였습니다.

1 차 대격변 (미국 최고의 온라인 DVD 렌탈 업체 도약) 2 차 대격변 (미국 최고의 온라인

스트리밍 기반 미디어 사업자 도약) 3 차 대격변 (House of Card 제작 및 글로벌 진출 가속화

통해, 글로벌 미디어 제작-유통 사업자로의 도약)

Netflix의 3번의 대 격변은 끊임없는 problem solving 과 사업모델 혁신의 결과였습니다.

문제해결 예 (1): 영화추천 엔진을 만들어, “20% 최신작에서 80% 매출이 발생구조”에서 “80%

작품에서 60% 이상 매출이 발생하는 구조”로 진환

문제해결 예 (2): 유통업자로서의 한계(제작에의 횡포에 휘돌림, 저마진 등)를 극복하고,

소비자가 원하는 콘텐츠를 제공하기 위해, 콘텐츠 제작 사업 확대 (예: House of Cards 등)

Netflix의 성공적 사업모델 혁신의 근간에는 “A”급 인재들로만 구성된 조직과 끊임없이 problem

solving 하게 하는 문화의 힘이 있었습니다. 이에, 페이스북 COO 셰릴 샌드버그는, Netflix 의 인사/ 문화

정책을 ‘실리콘밸리의 교본’이라 평가하였습니다.

Netflix 가 밝힌 Netflix의 인사/조직/문화 정책의 핵심은 아래와 같습니다.

소수 정예 조직을 기조로, “A” 급 인재만을 선발하며, 각 인재에게 다수 권한 부여

모든 직원에게 업계 최고의 대우 보장 (예: 업계 최고 연봉 제공)

“A”급 인재들이 창의적으로 사고하고, Problem solving 에 집중하도록 지원하는 사내 제도 운영

“A” 급 인재가 아닌 사람에 대해서는, 최고 수준의 퇴직 보상 제공 후 퇴사

비전-미션-상품-사람-정책/시스템/프로세스가 align 될 수 있도록 지원하는 기업문화 수립

사실 “최고 인재를 선발하고,많은 권한/책임을 부여하는 것”은 많은 회사들이 취하고 있는 정책입니다.

하지만, Netflix 가 유독 Best Practice 로 소개되는 이유가 무엇일까요? 여러분의 회사는 어떠한가요?

미국에서 Netflix 를 직접 사용하며, 그들의 혁신을 몸소 체험하고 있는 Ringle Tutor들과 의견을 교환해

보신 후, 심층 영어 교정 역시 받아보시기 바랍니다.




[Today’s article]

How Netflix Reinvented HR

(Journal published at 2014, February by Harvard Business Review)

Sheryl Sandberg has called it one of the most important documents ever to come out of Silicon Valley.

It’s been viewed more than 5 million times on the web. But when Reed Hastings and I wrote a

PowerPoint deck explaining how we shaped the culture and motivated performance at Netflix, we had no

idea it would go viral. We realized that some of the talent management ideas we’d pioneered, had been

seen as a little crazy. But we were surprised that an unadorned set of 127 slides-no music, no animation-

would become so influential.

People find the Netflix approach to talent and culture compelling for a few reasons. The most obvious one

is that Netflix has been really successful: [1] During 2013 alone its stock more than tripled, it won three

Emmy awards, and its U.S. subscriber base grew to nearly 29 million. All that aside, the approach is

compelling because it derives from common sense. In this article I’ll go beyond the bullet points to

describe five ideas that have defined the way Netflix attracts, retains, and manages talent.

The first took place in late 2001. Netflix had been growing quickly: We’d reached about 120 employees

and had been planning an IPO. [2] But after the dot-com bubble burst and the 9/11 attacks occurred,

things changed. It became clear that we needed to put the IPO on hold and lay off a third of our

employees. Then, a bit unexpectedly, DVD players became the hot gift that Christmas. [3] By early 2002

our DVD-by-mail subscription business was growing like crazy. Suddenly we had far more work to do,

with 30% fewer employees.

One day I was talking with one of our best engineers, an employee I’ll call John. Before the layoffs, he’d

managed three engineers, but now he was a one-man department working very long hours. I told John I




hoped to hire some help for him soon. His response surprised me. [4] “There’s no rush-I’m happier now.”

It turned out that the engineers we’d laid off weren’t spectacular. John realized that he’d spent too much

time riding herd on them and fixing their mistakes. “[5] I’ve learned that I’d rather work by myself than

with subpar performers,” he said. His words echo in my mind whenever I describe the most basic element

of Netflix’s talent philosophy: [6] The best thing you can do for employees is hire only “A” players to

work alongside them. Excellent colleagues trump everything else.

The second conversation took place in 2002, a few months after our IPO. Laura, our bookkeeper, was

bright, hardworking, and creative. She’d been very important to our early growth. [7] But now, as a public

company, we needed CPAs and other fully credentialed, deeply experienced accounting professionals—

and Laura had only an associate’s degree from a community college. Despite her work ethic, her track

record, and the fact that we all really liked her, her skills were no longer adequate. [8] Some of us talked

about jury-rigging a new role for her, but we decided that wouldn’t be right.

[9] So I sat down with Laura and explained the situation—and said that in light of her spectacular service,

we would give her a spectacular severance package. I’d braced myself for tears or histrionics, but Laura

reacted well: She was sad to be leaving but recognized that the generous severance would let her regroup,

retrain, and find a new career path. This incident helped us create the other vital element of our talent

management philosophy: [10] If we wanted only “A” players on our team, we had to be willing to let go

of people whose skills no longer fit, no matter how valuable their contributions had once been. Out of

fairness to such people—and, frankly, to help us overcome our discomfort with discharging them—we

learned to offer rich severance packages.

[11] With these two overarching principles in mind, we shaped our approach to talent using the five tenets

below.




Hire, Reward, and Tolerate Only Fully Formed Adults

Over the years we learned that if we asked people to rely on logic and common sense instead of on formal

policies, most of the time we would get better results, and at lower cost. [12] If you’re careful to hire

people who will put the company’s interests first, who understand and support the desire for a high-

performance workplace, 97% of your employees will do the right thing. [13] Most companies spend

endless time and money writing and enforcing HR policies to deal with problems the other 3% might

cause. [14] Instead, we tried really hard to not hire those people, and we let them go if it turned out we’d

made a hiring mistake.

Adult-like behavior means talking openly about issues with your boss, your colleagues, and your

subordinates. [15] Let me offer two examples.

[16] When Netflix launched, we had a standard paid-time-off policy: People got 10 vacation days, 10

holidays, and a few sick days. After we went public, our auditors freaked. They said Sarbanes-Oxley

mandated that we account for time off. We considered instituting a formal tracking system. But then Reed

asked, “Are companies required to give time off? If not, can’t we just handle it informally and skip the

accounting rigmarole?” I did some research and found that, indeed, no California law governed vacation

time.

[17] So instead of shifting to a formal system, we went in the opposite direction: Salaried employees were

told to take whatever time they felt was appropriate. Bosses and employees were asked to work it out with

one another. (Hourly workers in call centers and warehouses were given a more structured policy.) We

did provide some guidance. If you worked in accounting or finance, you shouldn’t plan to be out during

the beginning or the end of a quarter, because those were busy times. [18] If you wanted 30 days off in a

row, you needed to meet with HR. Senior leaders were urged to take vacations and to let people know

about them—they were role models for the policy. Some people worried about whether the system would

be inconsistent—whether some bosses would allow tons of time off while others would be stingy. In

general, I worried more about fairness than consistency, because the reality is that in any organization, the

highest-performing and most valuable employees get more leeway.

The company’s expense policy is five words long: “Act in Netflix’s best interests.”

We also departed from a formal travel and expense policy and decided to simply require adult-like

behavior there, too. [19] The company’s expense policy is five words long: “Act in Netflix’s best

interests.” Eliminating a formal policy and forgoing expense account police shifted responsibility to

frontline managers, where it belongs. It also reduced costs: Many large companies still use travel agents

(and pay their fees) to book trips, as a way to enforce travel policies. They could save money by letting

employees book their own trips online. Like most Netflix managers, I had to have conversations

periodically with employees who ate at lavish restaurants (meals that would have been fine for sales or

recruiting, but not for eating alone or with a Netflix colleague). But overall we found that expense

accounts are another area where if you create a clear expectation of responsible behavior, most employees

will comply.




Tell the Truth About Performance

Many years ago we eliminated formal reviews. We had held them for a while but came to realize they

didn’t make sense—they were too ritualistic and too infrequent. So we asked managers and employees to

have conversations about performance as an organic part of their work. In many functions—sales,

engineering, product development—it’s fairly obvious how well people are doing. Building a bureaucracy

and elaborate rituals around measuring performance usually doesn’t improve it.

Traditional corporate performance reviews are driven largely by fear of litigation. The theory is that if

you want to get rid of someone, you need a paper trail documenting a history of poor achievement. At

many companies, low performers are placed on “Performance Improvement Plans.” I detest PIPs. I think

they’re fundamentally dishonest: They never accomplish what their name implies.

One Netflix manager requested a PIP for a quality assurance engineer named Maria, who had been hired

to help develop our streaming service. The technology was new, and it was evolving very quickly.

Maria’s job was to find bugs. She was fast, intuitive, and hardworking. But in time we figured out how to

automate the QA tests. Maria didn’t like automation and wasn’t particularly good at it. Her new boss told

me he wanted to start a PIP with her.

I replied, “Why bother? We know how this will play out. [20] You’ll write up objectives and deliverables

for her to achieve, which she can’t, because she lacks the skills. Every Wednesday you’ll take time away

from your real work to discuss (and document) her shortcomings. After a few weeks there will be tears.

This will go on for three months. The entire team will know. And at the end you’ll fire her. None of this

will make any sense to her, because for five years she’s been consistently rewarded for being great at her

job—a job that basically doesn’t exist anymore. Tell me again how Netflix benefits?

“Instead, let’s just tell the truth: [21] Technology has changed, the company has changed, and Maria’s

skills no longer apply. This won’t be a surprise to her: She’s been in the trenches, watching the work

around her shift. Give her a great severance package—which, when she signs the documents, will

dramatically reduce (if not eliminate) the chance of a lawsuit.” [22] In my experience, people can handle

anything as long as they’re told the truth—and this proved to be the case with Maria.

When we stopped doing formal performance reviews, we instituted informal 360-degree reviews. We

kept them fairly simple: People were asked to identify things that colleagues should stop, start, or

continue. [23] In the beginning we used an anonymous software system, but over time we shifted to

signed feedback, and many teams held their 360s face-to-face.

Managers Own the Job of Creating Great Teams

Discussing the military’s performance during the Iraq War, Donald Rumsfeld, the former defense

secretary, once famously said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or

wish to have at a later time.” When I talk to managers about creating great teams, I tell them to approach

the process in exactly the opposite way.




[24] If you’re in a fast-changing business environment, you’re probably looking at a lot of mismatches. In

that case, you need to have honest conversations about letting some team members find a place where

their skills are a better fit. You also need to recruit people with the right skills.

We faced the latter challenge at Netflix in a fairly dramatic way as we began to shift from DVDs by mail

to a streaming service. We had to store massive volumes of files in the cloud and figure out how huge

numbers of people could reliably access them. [25] So we needed to find people deeply experienced with

cloud services who worked for companies that operate on a giant scale—companies like Amazon, eBay,

Google, and Facebook, which aren’t the easiest places to hire someone away from.

Our compensation philosophy helped a lot. For instance, during my tenure Netflix didn’t pay performance

bonuses, because we believed that they’re unnecessary if you hire the right people. If your employees are

fully formed adults who put the company first, an annual bonus won’t make them work harder or smarter.

We also believed in market-based pay and would tell employees that it was smart to interview with

competitors when they had the chance, in order to get a good sense of the market rate for their talent.

Many HR people dislike it when employees talk to recruiters, but I always told employees to take the call,

ask how much, and send me the number—it’s valuable information.

In addition, we used equity compensation much differently from the way most companies do. Instead of

larding stock options on top of a competitive salary, we let employees choose how much (if any) of their

compensation would be in the form of equity. If employees wanted stock options, we reduced their

salaries accordingly. We believed that they were sophisticated enough to understand the trade-offs, judge

their personal tolerance for risk, and decide what was best for them and their families. We distributed

options every month, at a slight discount from the market price. [26] We had no vesting period—the

options could be cashed in immediately. [27] Most tech companies have a four-year vesting schedule and

try to use options as “golden handcuffs” to aid retention, but we never thought that made sense. If you see a better opportunity elsewhere, you should be allowed to take what you’ve earned and leave.

We continually told managers that building a great team was their most important task. We didn’t

measure them on whether they were excellent coaches or got their paperwork done on time. Great teams accomplish great work, and recruiting the right team was the top priority.

Leaders Own the Job of Creating the Company Culture

After I left Netflix and began consulting, I visited a hot start-up in San Francisco. It had 60 employees in

an open loft-style office with a foosball table, two pool tables, and a kitchen, where a chef cooked lunch

for the entire staff. As the CEO showed me around, he talked about creating a fun atmosphere. At one point I asked him what the most important value for his company was. He replied, “Efficiency.”

“OK,” I said. “Imagine that I work here, and it’s 2:58 PM. I’m playing an intense game of pool, and I’m

winning. I estimate that I can finish the game in five minutes. We have a meeting at 3:00. Should I stay

and win the game or cut it short for the meeting?”




“You should finish the game,” he insisted. I wasn’t surprised; like many tech start-ups, this was a casual

place, where employees wore hoodies and brought pets to work, and that kind of casualness often extends

to punctuality. “Wait a second,” I said. “You told me that efficiency is your most important cultural value.

It’s not efficient to delay a meeting and keep coworkers waiting because of a pool game. [28] Isn’t there a mismatch between the values you’re talking up and the behaviors you’re modeling and encouraging?”

When I advise leaders about molding a corporate culture, I tend to see three issues that need attention.

This type of mismatch is one. [29] It’s a particular problem at start-ups, where there’s a premium on

casualness that can run counter to the high-performance ethos leaders want to create. I frequently see

CEOs who are clearly winging it. They lack a real agenda. They’re working from slides that were

obviously put together an hour before or were recycled from the previous round of VC meetings. Workers

notice these things, and if they see a leader who’s not fully prepared and who relies on charm, IQ, and improvisation, it affects how they perform, too.

It’s a waste of time to articulate ideas about values and culture if you don’t model

and reward behavior that aligns with those goals.

The second issue has to do with making sure employees understand the levers that drive the business. I

recently visited a Texas start-up whose employees were mostly engineers in their twenties. “I bet half the

people in this room have never read a P&L,” I said to the CFO. He replied, “It’s true— [30] they’re not

financially savvy or business savvy, and our biggest challenge is teaching them how the business works.”

Even if you’ve hired people who want to perform well, you need to clearly communicate how the




company makes money and what behaviors will drive its success. At Netflix, for instance, employees

used to focus too heavily on subscriber growth, without much awareness that our expenses often ran

ahead of it: We were spending huge amounts buying DVDs, setting up distribution centers, and ordering

original programming, all before we’d collected a cent from our new subscribers. [31] Our employees needed to learn that even though revenue was growing, managing expenses really mattered.

The third issue is something I call the split personality start-up. [32] At tech companies this usually

manifests itself as a schism between the engineers and the sales team, but it can take other forms. At

Netflix, for instance, I sometimes had to remind people that there were big differences between the

salaried professional staff at headquarters and the hourly workers in the call centers. At one point our

finance team wanted to shift the whole company to direct-deposit paychecks, and I had to point out that

some of our hourly workers didn’t have bank accounts. That’s a small example, but it speaks to a larger

point: As leaders build a company culture, they need to be aware of subcultures that might require different management.

Good Talent Managers Think Like Businesspeople and Innovators First, and Like HR People Last

Throughout most of my career I’ve belonged to professional associations of human resources executives.

Although I like the people in these groups personally, I often find myself disagreeing with them. Too

many devote time to morale improvement initiatives. At some places entire teams focus on getting their

firm onto lists of “Best Places to Work” (which, when you dig into the methodologies, are really based

just on perks and benefits).

[33] During 30 years in business I’ve never seen an HR initiative that improved morale. HR departments

might throw parties and hand out T-shirts, but if the stock price is falling or the company’s products

aren’t perceived as successful, the people at those parties will quietly complain—and they’ll use the T-

shirts to wash their cars.

Instead of cheerleading, people in my profession should think of themselves as businesspeople. What’s

good for the company? How do we communicate that to employees? How can we help every worker understand what we mean by high performance?

Here’s a simple test: If your company has a performance bonus plan, go up to a random employee and

ask, “Do you know specifically what you should be doing right now to increase your bonus?” If he or she

can’t answer, the HR team isn’t making things as clear as they need to be.

At Netflix I worked with colleagues who were changing the way people consume filmed entertainment,

which is an incredibly innovative pursuit—yet when I started there, the expectation was that I would

default to mimicking other companies’ best practices (many of them antiquated), which is how almost

everyone seems to approach HR. I rejected those constraints. There’s no reason the HR team can’t be innovative too.

A version of this article appeared in the January–February 2014 issue of Harvard Business Review.

(https://hbr.org/2014/01/how-netflix-reinvented-hr)

https://hbr.org/archive-toc/BR1401

https://hbr.org/2014/01/how-netflix-reinvented-hr




[Video clip]

Please watch this video clip

[Must to see] How Netflix Revolutionized Human Resources (You can see the writer of today’s article interview)

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/netflix-employee-perks-

third-metric/530cf3e902a7606378000114

[Optional video clip] Who we are - Work at Netflix

(You can see interviews with 5 current Netflix employees)

https://jobs.netflix.com/who-we-are




[11 Key Questions]

#1. Intro question

Q1: Can you summarize the main points of the first article in one or two sentences?

#2. “A” player-centered HR policy in Netflix: Recruit only “A” players

One day I was talking with one of our best engineers, an employee I’ll call John. Before the layoffs, he’d managed three engineers, but now he was a one-man department working very long hours. I told John I hoped to hire some help for him soon. His response surprised me. “There’s no rush—I’m happier now.” It turned out that the engineers we’d laid off weren’t spectacular. John realized that he’d spent too much time riding herd on them and fixing their mistakes. “I’ve learned that I’d rather work by myself than with subpar performers,” he said. His words echo in my mind whenever I describe the most basic element of Netflix’s talent philosophy: The best thing you can do for employees—a perk better than foosball or free sushi—is hire only “A” players to work alongside them. Excellent colleagues trump everything else.

Q2-1: What are the anticipated pros and cons of Netflix’s “A” player-centered HR policy?

Q2-2: How is your current company’s HR policy? Which policies do you prefer? And why?

Q2-3: What is your philosophy when hiring people? When you recruit people, what are your

criteria for screening potential employees?

#3. Exit policy of Netflix: “Layoff the B players with rich severance packages”

The second conversation took place in 2002, a few months after our IPO. Laura, our bookkeeper, was bright,

hardworking, and creative. She’d been very important to our early growth. But now, as a public company, we

needed CPAs and other fully credentialed, deeply experienced accounting professionals—and Laura had only an

associate’s degree from a community college. Despite her work ethic, her track record, and the fact that we all really

liked her, her skills were no longer adequate. Some of us talked about jury-rigging a new role for her, but we

decided that wouldn’t be right.

So I sat down with Laura and explained the situation—and said that in light of her spectacular service, we would give her a spectacular severance package. I’d braced myself for tears or histrionics, but Laura reacted well: She was sad to be leaving but recognized that the generous severance would let her regroup, retrain, and find a new career path. This incident helped us create the other vital element of our talent management philosophy: If we wanted only “A” players on our team, we had to be willing to let go of people whose skills no longer fit, no matter how valuable their contributions had once been. Out of fairness to such people—and, frankly, to help us overcome our discomfort with discharging them—we learned to offer rich severance packages.

Q3-1: If you were the HR manager at Netflix, how would your decision for Laura be

different? And why?




Q3-2: Do you believe that “B” players can become “A” player through training and extra

attention?

Q3-3: What is your current company’s layoff policy? Which policies do you prefer? And

why?

#4. Vacation policy of Netflix: “Unlimited vacation days!!! Each employees can freely decide

their vacation days!”

So instead of shifting to a formal system, we went in the opposite direction: Salaried employees were told to take whatever time (vacation time) they felt was appropriate. Bosses and employees were asked to work it out with one another. We did provide some guidance. If you worked in accounting or finance, you shouldn’t plan to be out during the beginning or the end of a quarter, because those were busy times. If you wanted 30 days off in a row, you needed to meet with HR. Senior leaders were urged to take vacations and to let people know about them—they were role models for the policy. Some people worried about whether the system would be inconsistent—whether some bosses would allow tons of time off while others would be stingy. In general, I worried more about fairness than consistency, because the reality is that in any organization, the highest-performing and most valuable employees get more leeway.

Q4-1: Why do you think Netflix initiated the unlimited vacation time policy? What are the

firm’s hidden intentions?

Q4-2: Compared to Netflix, what is your company’s off-time policy? Does it make sense to

you? Do you have enough vacation time to refresh your mindset and be inspired to create

new ideas?

Q4-3: What do you think is the goal of vacation? To realize this goal, how should the

vacation policy be designed?

#5. Expense policy of Netflix: “No specific guidelines on expense policy. Act is Netflix’s best

interests is the only guideline”

“The company’s expense policy is five words long: “Act in Netflix’s best interests.”

Q5-1: What is your company’s expense policy? How many detained guidelines does your

firm’s expense policy have?

Q5-2: If your company has the same policy as Netflix, how might the total amounts of

expense be changed? Do you think the amount increase dramatically?

Q5-3: What are the pros and cons of Netflix’s expense guideline? If you become a leader of

firm in the future, would you apply same policy in your company?




#6. Evaluation process of Netflix: “Get rid of formal review process, and increase informal

communication between managers and staffs”

When we stopped doing formal performance reviews, we instituted informal 360-degree reviews. We kept them fairly simple: People were asked to identify things that colleagues should stop, start, or continue. In the beginning we used an anonymous software system, but over time we shifted to signed feedback, and many teams held their 360s face-to-face.

Q6-1: What are functions of the evaluation process in the company? Without a formal

review, how can employees recognize their current status in the company?

Q6-2: What is the review process in your company? Which policy would be better for you?

And why?

#7. Compensation policy at Netflix: “Pay the most competitive compensation package in the

industry to employee”

Our compensation philosophy helped a lot. For instance, during my tenure Netflix didn’t pay performance bonuses, because we believed that they’re unnecessary if you hire the right people. If your employees are fully formed adults who put the company first, an annual bonus won’t make them work harder or smarter. We also believed in market-based pay and would tell employees that it was smart to interview with competitors when they had the chance, in order to get a good sense of the market rate for their talent. Many HR people dislike it when employees talk to recruiters, but I always told employees to take the call, ask how much, and send me the number—it’s valuable information.

Q7-1: Why does Netflix have the compensation policy shown above? What might be the

benefits of the policy?

Q7-2: Do you think that Netflix’s compensation policy is well aligned with the

vision/mission of Netflix?

Q7-3: Does your company guarantee the most competitive salary and bonus to you? Are you

motivated by your firm due to the level of compensation?

#8. Corporate culture of Netflix: “Culture needs to be perfectly aligned with vision-mission-

service strategy and people”

“You should finish the game,” he insisted. I wasn’t surprised; like many tech start-ups, this was a casual place, where employees wore hoodies and brought pets to work, and that kind of casualness often extends to punctuality. “Wait a second,” I said. “You told me that efficiency is your most important cultural value. It’s not efficient to delay a meeting and keep coworkers waiting because of a pool game. Isn’t there a mismatch between the values you’re talking up and the behaviors you’re modeling and encouraging?”

When I advise leaders about molding a corporate culture, I tend to see three issues that need attention. This type of mismatch is one. It’s a particular problem at start-ups, where there’s a premium on casualness that can run counter




to the high-performance ethos leaders want to create. I frequently see CEOs who are clearly winging it. They lack a real agenda. They’re working from slides that were obviously put together an hour before or were recycled from the previous round of VC meetings. Workers notice these things, and if they see a leader who’s not fully prepared and who relies on charm, IQ, and improvisation, it affects how they perform, too. It’s a waste of time to articulate ideas about values and culture if you don’t model and reward behavior that aligns with those goals.

Q8-1: Why is corporate culture important?

Q8-2: Can you define your company’s culture with 2~3 sentences? Do you think all the

members of your company would say the same definition as you? If not, what are the

reasons?

Q8-3: What is a good corporate culture? What are the core factors comprising good culture?

#9. Direction of HR policy in Netflix

During 30 years in business I’ve never seen an HR initiative that improved morale. HR departments might throw parties and hand out T-shirts, but if the stock price is falling or the company’s products aren’t perceived as successful, the people at those parties will quietly complain—and they’ll use the T-shirts to wash their cars.

Instead of cheerleading, people in my profession should think of themselves as businesspeople. What’s good for the company? How do we communicate that to employees? How can we help every worker understand what we mean by high performance?

Q9-1: What are the prerequisites of a HR policy to create positive synergy with the main

business in the company?

Q9-2: Do you have an exact understanding of the criteria that measures a high-performer?

Does your company’s HR policy help improve the performance of working staffs?

#10. Unique essence of Netflix

Q10-1: What is the essence of the Netflix’s policy? Could you summarize it with one or two

sentences?

Q10-2: How does this policy contribute to the performance and BMI (business model

innovation) of Netflix?

#11 Presentation to the CEO of your company

You will brief “How your company reinvent HR” to the CEO of your company. Be prepared.




[Key business related terms and expressions]

[1] Its stock more than tripled: 주가가 3배 이상 뛰었다 주가/가격 상승 등을 표현할 때 참고

가능한 문장

Ex) I'd imagine there are certainly double the government figures of unemployed, possibly triple

that in fact as you say: 당신이 말한 대로라면, 나는 실업자 수가 정부가 발표한 숫자 대비

확실히 2배 이상, 3배 이상까지 있을 수 있다고 생각해요.

Ex) The number of students attending their English language course has more than tripled from

30 to 100 in recent years: 영어 수업을 듣는 학생들의 수가 최근 몇 년간 30명에서 100명으로

3배 이상 증가했습니다.

[1] Its subscriber base has grown to nearly 29 million: 가입자 규모가 약 2,900만명으로 증가했다.

가입자 규모가 “약 xx 명” 으로 증가했다 는 표현 시 참고 가능한 문장

Subscriber: a person, company, etc., that subscribes, as to a publication or concert series.

Subscribersto a service are the people who pay to receive the service.

Ex) China has almost 15 million subscribers to satellite and cable television. 중국에는 위성

케이블 TV 유료 가입자가 약 1,500만명 가까이 있다.

[2] bubble burst: 버블 붕괴, 성공적이었던 시간이 갑자기 끝나다

Bubble burst: If the bubble bursts, a very happy, pleasant, or successful time suddenly ends:

Ex) Finally, the speculative property bubble burst: 결국, 투기적인 부동산 투기 버블이 터졌다.

[2] Things changed (or Things have changed): 변화가 일어나다. 사정이 달라지다

Ex) But things have changed a lot since then: 하지만 그 이후로 사정이 (상황이) 많이

달라졌어요.

Ex) Things changed quickly in my favor! 나에게 유리하게 상황이 바뀌었습니다.

[3] grow like crazy: 미친듯이 성장하다, 급격히 성장하다

Like crazy: very much, fast, many, or actively (=like mad)

Ex) By early 2002 our DVD-by-mail subscription business was growing like crazy: 2002년 초반

까지, 회원제 DVD를 대여-배송 비즈니스는 급격히 성장했다.

Ex) Of course, the Chinese mobile market is growing like crazy: 당연히, 중국의 모바일 시장은

급격히 성장하고 있다.




[4] There is no rush: 서두르지 않아도 됩니다. (=There is no hurry)

Ex) He is only 34 and there is no rush to put him out to pasture just yet: 그는 아직 34살밖에

안되었기 때문에, (스포츠 팀에서) 그를 퇴출시키려고 서두를 필요가 없다.

Ex) This is an eating habit for life...there is no rush: 이것은 인생을 위한 식사 습관입니다.

서두르지 않으셔도 되요.

[5] subpar performer: 수준 이하의 성과를 내는 직원

Subpar: below an average, usual, or normal level, quality, or the like; below par

Ex) Defending World Champion Mao Asada of Japan is sixth in the world due to her subpar

2010-11 season: 지난 해 세계 대회 우승자인 아사다 마오는 2010-11년 시즌 수준 이하의

성적을 거두며 6위에 그쳤다.

[6] “A” player: “A” 급 인재

We can extract the attributes from this Steve Jobs' quote:

"For most things in life, the range between best and average is 30% or so. The best airplane flight, the best

meal, they may be 30% better than your average one. What I saw with Woz was somebody who was fifty

times better than the average engineer. He could have meetings in his head. The Mac team was an attempt

to build a whole team like that, A players. People said they wouldn’t get along, they’d hate working with

each other. But I realized that A players like to work with A players, they just didn’t like working with C

players. At Pixar, it was a whole company of A players. When I got back to Apple, that’s what I decided to

try to do. You need to have a collaborative hiring process. When we hire someone, even if they’re going to

be in marketing, I will have them talk to the design folks and the engineers." Source: Isaacson's book

So, an A player is:

*a technical expert who is very effective and highly productive relative to his peers;

*someone who really understands his field and is attentive to details;

*a cross-functional team player;

*someone who can get along with a proven team of A players

*someone who doesn't like working with C players

[7] fully credentialed, deeply experienced professional: 완벽한 자격을 갖추고 있고, 깊은 경험을

보유한 전문가

Credentials: Usually, credentials. evidence of authority, status, rights, entitlement to privileges, or

the like, usually in written form:

Ex) He has the necessary credentials to become the president: 그는 사장이 될 기본 자격을

갖추고 있다.

Ex) Look for someone the same rank and credentials that I had: 나와 같은 지위와 자격을 갖춘

사람을 찾아봐라.




[8] Jury-rigging a new role: 임시 방편으로 만든 자리 (포지션)

Jury-rig: to assemble quickly or from whatever is at hand, especially for temporary use:

Ex) Some of us talked about jury-rigging a new role for her, but we decided that wouldn’t be

right: 어떤 사람들은 그녀에게 임시 방편으로 만든 새로운 포지션을 만들어라 이야기 했지만,

우리는 그것은 올바르지 않다고 결정했다.

[9] in light of: ~을 고려하여, 감안하여

In light of: because of certain knowledge now in hand; considering something.

Ex) In fact we modified class materials in light of its comments: 사실, 우리는 코멘트 (비판)을

반영하여 수업 자료를 수정했다.

Ex) In light of these fact (past event): 이런 사실 (과거 사건들)에 비추어 보면

[9] severance package: 퇴직금 (=severance pay)

Severance Package: A bundle of pay and benefits offered to an employee upon being laid off

from a company

Ex) In light of her spectacular service, we would give her a spectacular severance package:

그녀의 엄청났던 서비스를 감안하여, 우리는 그녀에게 굉장히 많은 퇴직금을 지불했다.

[10] Let go of people whose skills no longer fit: 더 이상 (그가 가진) 기술이 더 이상 (우리 조직과)

맞지 않는 사람을 내보내다

let go of: 떠나 보내다 (Sometimes people can’t let go of the past: 때때로 사람들은 과거에서

자유로울 수 없다. 때때로 사람들은 과거를 떠나 보내지 못한다)

[11] overarching principles: 모든 것을 포괄하는 원칙

Overarching: encompassing or overshadowing everything:

Ex) It is the overarching general principle in the guidance: 이것은 가이드라인에서 가장 중요한

일반적 원칙이다.

Ex) NGO’s overarching aim is the elimination of poverty. NGP의 가장 중요한 목적은 빈곤을

없애는 것이다.

[11] tenet: 교리, 신조, 주의

Tenet: Any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., especially one held as true by members of a

profession, group, or movement.

Ex) With these two overarching principles in mind, we shaped our approach to talent using the

five tenets below. 우리는 이러한 2개의 가장 중요한 원칙을 마음에 새기며, 인재관리에 대한

우리의 방식을 아래와 같은 5가지 신조를 바탕으로 만들었다.




[12] Put the company’s interests first: 회사의 이익을 가장 우선시하다

[12] do the right thing: 올바른 일을 한다 (정당하게 행동한다)

Ex) People want to do the right thing and buy "green.": 사람들은 옳은 일을 하기를 원해서,

환경친화 상품을 수입한다.

[13] enforce policy: 정책을 실시하다, 방침을 강행하다

Enforce: to put or keep in force; compel obedience to

Ex) Most companies spend endless time and money writing and enforcing HR policies to deal

with problems the other 3% might cause: 대다수 회사는 전체 인력의 3%가 일으키는 문제를

해결하기 위해, HR 정책을 만들고 집행하는 데에 끝없는 시간과 자금을 사용한다.

Ex) The company enforced a recycling policy to help conserve paper: 그 회사는 종이 절약을

돕기 위해 재활용 정책을 실시했다.

[14] We’d made a hiring mistake: 우리는 채용 과정에서 실수를 했다 ‘우리 회사가 사람을 잘못

뽑았다’를 표현할 때 참고 가능한 문장

[15] Let me offer two examples: 2개 사례를 소개해 드리겠습니다 예시 들 때에 참고 가능한 문장

[16] Paid time-off policy: 유급 휴가 정책 (= paid vacation, paid leave)

Paid time off: Paid time off or personal time off (PTO) is a policy in some employee handbooks

that provides a bank of hours in which the employer pools sick days, vacation days, and personal

days that allows employees to use as the need or desire arises

Ex) When Netflix launched, we had a standard paid-time-off policy: Netflix를 시작했을 때,

우리는 전형적인 유급 휴가 정책을 보유하고 있었다.

Ex) The cost of mandated seven days paid-time off is pure overhead cost: 법정 유급 휴가 7일에

해당하는 비용은 모두 간접 비용이다.

[16] traditional brick-and-mortar enterprise :전통적 제조업 기반 기업

[16] uses “A” more as “B” than as “C”: A 를 B 가 아닌 C로 사용하다.

It was born online and uses retail stores more as a showroom marketing experience than as an

essential distribution channel. 해당 업체는 온라인 사업자로 시작했으며, 오프라인 점포를

유통채널이 아닌 고객 경험 제공을 위한 showroom 으로 사용했다.




[17] go in the opposite direction: 반대 방향으로 가다. 정 반대의 길을 가다. 역행하다 (=depart from a

formal policy)

Ex) So instead of shifting to a formal system, we went in the opposite direction: 그래서, 우리는

일반적인 시스템을 도입하기 보다는, 역행하는 방향으로 가 보았다.

Ex) Another nearby family business is going in the opposite direction: 인근에 있는 다른 가족

기업은 정 반대의 길을 가고 있다.

[18] 30 days off in a row: 한달 휴가 (한달 내내 쉬는 휴가)

in a row: in succession; one after the other

Ex) Voted Best in Boston four years in a row: 보스턴에서 4년 연속으로 최고 레스토랑으로

선정된 곳입니다.

Ex) Korea's global competitiveness is rising 3 years in a row: 한국의 글로벌 경쟁력은 3년

연속으로 상승하고 있습니다.

[19] The company’s expense policy is five words long: 회사의 비용 정책은 5 단어로 표현할 수

있습니다. “~~를 몇 단어로 표현할 수 있습니다” 라는 표현 시 참고 가능한 문장

Ex) Your essay should be no more than two thousand words long: 당신의 에세이는 2,000자를

넘어가면 안됩니다.

[20] She lacks the skills: 그녀는 능력이 부족하다 (=She has a lack of skill)

Ex) But in reality, they just lack the proper basic skill set: 하지만, 사실상 그들은 적합한

기본기가 부족하다.

Ex) But, you still lack skill and experience: 하지만 너는 여전히 기술과 경험이 부족해.

Ex) He has talent but lack skill to apply it: 그는 재능은 있는데, 그 재능을 살릴 기술이

부족하다.

[21] Technology has changed, the company has changed, and Maria’s skills no longer apply:

기술이 발전했고, 회사도 발전하면서, 마리아의 기술이 더 이상 응용될 곳이 없다. “세상이

진화하고, 회사 역시 첨단화 되면서 기존 직원들이 가진 기술이 “too old” 해지는 순간 표현 시 참고

가능한 문장

Ex) 10 Marriage Rules that No Longer Apply: 더 이상 통하지 않는 10가지 결혼 규칙

Ex) But these are extraordinary times, and the normal rules no longer apply: 그러나 지금은

특수한 (이례적인) 시기여서, 일반적인 규칙들이 적용되지 않습니다.




[22] People can handle anything as long as they’re told the truth: 사람들이 진실을 이야기 하는

이상, 무엇이든 어떤 상황이든 해결할 수 있다. (직원들이) 진실을 이야기 한다면, 어떤 일이든

결국 잘 처리할 수 있다는 표현 시 참고 가능한 문장

Handle: to touch, pick up, carry, or feel with the hand or hands; use the hands on; take hold of. to

manage, deal with, or be responsible for:

Ex) It's a perfect way to handle the situation: 그것은 지금 이 상황을 해결하기 위한 가장 좋은

방법이다.

Ex) I have a pretty good handle on them: 나는 그들보다 더 잘할 수 있다.

Ex) Don’t worry, I will handle on it: 내가 처리할 테니 걱정하지 마세요.

[23] anonymous: 익명의

anonymous: without any name acknowledged, as that of author, contributor, or the like:

ex) In the beginning we used an anonymous software system, but over time we shifted to signed

feedback, and many teams held their 360s face-to-face: 우리는 처음엔 SW 시스템을 이용하여

익명으로 평가를 진행했지만 (온라인을 통해 익명으로 진행했지만), 이후 우리는 실명

기반의 피드백 체계로 전환했고, 지금은 많은 팀들이 360도 다면 평가를 face to face 로

진행하고 있다.

Ex) And, of course, every transaction is anonymous: 모든 거래는 익명으로 처리됩니다.

Ex) What is wrong with being anonymous? 익명성이 초래하는 부작용은 무엇인가?

[24] a fast-changing business environment: 빠르게 변화하는 경영환경 “경영 환경의 급속한

변화가 초래하는 xxx “ 등을 표현할 때 참고 가능한 문장

ex) If you’re in a fast-changing business environment, you’re probably looking at a lot of

mismatches: 당신이 빠르게 변화하는 경영 환경 내에 있다면, 당신은 많은 “미스매치” 들을

보고 있을 것이다.

[24] mismatch: 불일치, 부조화 최근 “수요-공급 mismatch” “고객-상품 mismatch”, “정부-기업

mismatch” 등 자주 사용되는 단어

mismatch: to match badly or unsuitably

Ex) This shows a mismatch between supply and demand in labor: 이것은 (이 정보는) 인력의

수요-공급의 부조화를 보여준다.

Ex) a mismatch between people’s real needs and the available facilities: 사람들의 진짜 니즈와

사용 가능한 시설 간 부조화




[25] Companies that operate on a giant scale—companies like Amazon, eBay, Google, and

Facebook: 아마존, 이베이, 구글, 페이스북과 같이 엄청난 스케일 하에서 운영되는 회사들 엄청난

규모의 user-base 및 data-base 하에서 돌아가는 기업들을 표현할 때에 참고 가능한 문장

[26] Vesting period: 스톡 옵션 행사 기간 (예: Vesting period 가 2년이면, 옵션을 받은 후 2년을

일해야 옵션을 행사할 수 있는 권리 확보)

Vesting period: The period of time before shares are owned unconditionally by an employee in an

employee stock option plan. If his/her employment terminates before this period ends, the

company can buy back the shares at their original price.

[26] the options could be cashed in immediately: 옵션을 바로 현금으로 정산 받을 수 있다.

Cash-in: To obtain a profit or other advantage by timely exploitation:

Ex) He cashed in retirement fund prematurely: 그는 퇴직금을 중간에 정산 받았다. (Cash 화

했다)

[27] Golden handcuffs: 직원의 전직을 위해 막기 위한 혜택 , 직원이 퇴사하면서 상실하게 되는

경제적 요소 (직역: 황금 수갑)

Golden handcuffs: A collection of financial incentives that are intended to encourage employees

to remain with a company. Golden handcuffs are offered by employers to existing employees as a

means of holding onto key employees and increasing employee retention rates. Golden handcuffs

are common in industries where highly-compensated employees are likely to move from

company to company.

Ex) Most tech companies have a four-year vesting schedule and try to use options as “golden

handcuffs” to aid retention, but we never thought that made sense. 대부분 Tech 회사들은 4년의

vesting 기간 (옵션 행사를 위해서는 4년 간 일해야 하는 조건)을 보유 중이며, 스톡옵션을

이직 방지를 위한 “Golden Handcuffs (황금 수갑) 으로 사용 중이다. 하지만 우리는 말이

안되는 것이라 생각한다.

[28] Isn’t there a mismatch between the values you are talking up and the behaviors you are

modeling and encouraging: 당신이 이야기 하고 있는 회사 가치와, 당신이 설계하고 독려하는

직원들의 행동 간에 미스매치가 있다고 생각하지 않나요? “회사가 지향하는 가치와 직원들의

행동이 align 되어 있지 않고 mismatch 가 일어나는 현상을 표현할 때에 참고 가능한 문장 (최근에

자주 등장하는 이슈)




[29] put/place/set a premium on somebody/something: ~을 특히 중요하게 (가치 있게) 여기다.

Put a premium on something: to consider something important or valuable

Ex) Academies place a high premium on local community engagement: 학계는 지역 단체의

참여를 높이 평가한다.

[29] run counter to: 거스르다, 배치되다. 반대되는 행동을 취하다

run counter to: Be in conflict with, oppose, as in Practice often runs counter to theory. This idiom

uses counter in the sense of “in an opposite direction.”

Ex) It’s a particular problem at start-ups, where there’s a premium on casualness that can run

counter to the high-performance ethos leaders want to create: 이것은 스타트업들의 전형적

문제인데, 캐주얼함에 대한 지나친 강조는, 엄청난 성과를 지향하는 리더들이 만들고 싶어

하는 것과는 배치될 수 있다

[30] savvy: 상식, 정통한 (financially savvy 재무적인 상식을 보유한. Business savvy 경영에 대한

상식을 보유한)

Savvy: Also, savviness. practical understanding; shrewdness or intelligence; common sense.

Shrewdly informed; experienced and well-informed; canny.

Ex) they’re not financially savvy or business savvy: 그들은 재무적/경영적인 상식이 부족하다.

(그들은 재무와 경영에 대한 상식이 턱없이 부족하다)

[31] managing expenses really mattered: 비용을 관리하는 것이 정말 중요하다 “무엇이 정말

중요하다” 할 때에 matter 를 쓰는 표현법이비즈니스에서는 많이 사용됨.

Matter: If you say that something does not matter, you mean that it is not important to you

because it does not have an effect on you or on a particular situation.

Ex) What matters most to you and why? 네 인생에서 가장 중요한 것은 무엇이야?

Ex) None of that material stuff mattered to us: 물질적인 것은 우리에게 중요하지 않다.

Ex) The most difficult matter is funding: 가장 어려운 문제는 funding (자금조달) 이었다.

Ex) What matters for most scientists is money and facilities: 과학자들에게 가장 중요한 것은

돈과 설비이다.

[32] schism between the engineers and the sales team: 개발자와 세일즈 팀 간 갈등/분열

Schism: division or disunion, especially into mutually opposed parties.

Ex) The answer is not schism but to pray and labour for a change: 이 상황에서의 답은 분열이

아니라, 변화를 위한 기도와 노력이다.




[33] I’ve never seen a “A” that ~~: 나는 ~~한 “A” 에 대해 들어본 적이 없다 “본 적이 없다”

“한 번도 본 적이 없는 사례/서비스/기술” 등 표현 시 참고 가능한 문장

Ex) During 30 years in business I’ve never seen an HR initiative that improved morale: 30년 간

비즈니스에 있으면서, 나는 근로의욕을 증진시켜주는 HR 계획/실행안을 본 적이 없다.

How Netflix reinvented HR to make an “A” player-centered … · 2015-07-14 · This material is...

Documents

Transcript of How Netflix reinvented HR to make an “A” player-centered … · 2015-07-14 · This material is...