Skip to Main Content
by Aman Singh Das | January 06, 2010


Are there ethics involved in firing someone for lack of performance? When the rationale of "its all business" is cited, is there room for a debate on what quantifies a capable worker: A adequate one or one who believes in over achieving? What then is adequate if your job evaluation isn't metric-heavy?

A blog today on the Business Insider discusses Netflix's culture referring to a presentation posted by the company's CEO Reed Hastings. It discusses a unique workplace culture involving higher awards for over achievers and cutting out the simply adequate ones. For example, take a look at the introductory slide:

Take a look at this one now:

What do you think readers? Is this the new decade of workplace competitiveness? Of course, awarding A players is essential at any workplace, but is firing the B players who do their basic job on a daily basis but don't necessarily over extend themselves acceptable? What is the definition of "adequate" then? Are we creating a culture of pseudoephedrine-induced super workers?

Leave us a comment and tell us what you think. Or write to me at You can view the rest of the presentation here.


Filed Under: CSR

Want to be found by top employers? Upload Your Resume

Join Gold to Unlock Company Reviews