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

Share

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 asingh@vault.com. You can view the rest of the presentation here.

Share

Filed Under: CSR

Want to be found by top employers? Upload Your Resume

Join Gold to Unlock Company Reviews

Newsletter
Subscribe to the Vault
Newsletter

Be the first to read new articles and get updates from the Vault team.