Kirjasta
Tämä on kiehtova kirja, jossa on hyvä konsepti. Kirjana se eroaa amerikkalaisesta bisneskirjallisuuden genrestä ja ennustan sille hyvää sijoitusta Financial Timesin kirjakilpailussa, jossa se kisaa mm. Samsungin ja Instagramin tarinan kanssa.
Minkälainen kirja oli?
Kirjan konsepti on onnistunut toteutus. Kirjan ovat kirjoittaneet Erin Meyer – professori, ja Reed Hastings – Netflixin toimitusjohtaja. He purkavat Netflixin kasvukaavaa sekä menetelmiä vuorovetoina. Hastings kertoo toimeenpanosta ja Meyer teoretisoi taustoja. Toiseksi kirjassa ei ole normaali yhtiön glorifiointia tai pelkästään puusilmäistä liiketoiminnan voitonjuhlia. Kolmanneksi – kirjan teemat kantavat loppuun asti. Toisinaan bisneskirjojen ydin on kerrottu kirjan ensimmäisen 30 % aikana. Loppu kirjasta kuluukin sitten todisteluun sekä toistoon. ”No Rules Rules”-kirjassa tätä ei tapahdu.
Olen myös haistavinani Jim Collinsin oppeja kirjasta. Ja miksei olisi koska Netflix on uusiutunut monissa internet-liiketoiminnan aalloissa – alkaen pöytä-pc aikakaudesta tänne tekoälyn esisoittoihin.
Start-up -kirjaksi se jättää jälkeen kaiken pitkäpiimäisen selostuksen kuinka vaikeaa oli rahoituksen järjestäminen, hallitustyöskentelystä sekä miten yhtiö oli hilkulla ajautua konkurssiin, mutta pelastui raikkaalta tuntuvan Immelmannin silmukan ansiosta.
Tämän sanottuani, niin kirjasta kannattaa lukea suurella mielenkiinnolla Hastingisin sekä Blockbusterin toimitusjohtajan kohtaaminen. Se on herkullinen kohtaaminen. Siis tarina kuinka Netflix tarjoutui Blockbusterin ostettavaksi, mutta he torjuivat yritysosto mahdollisuuden. #fail
Mitkä ovat kirjan keskeiset ideat?
Ennen ensimmäistäkään oppia tai ideaa, niin tärkeää on tunnistaa, että Netflix on kolme kertaa onnistunut uudistamaan liiketoimintakonseptia ja kaikilla kerroilla he ovat onnistuneet siinä. Miten?
- Netflix aloitti internet-palveluna, joka postitti asiakkailleen DVD-elokuvia.
- Netflix siirtyi suoratoistopalveluksi.
- Neflix ryhtyi julkaisemaan omia elokuvia sekä sarjoja.
Tähän ei kovin moni start-up ole yltänyt. Tämän veroista orgaanisen kasvu-uraa voi löytää esimerkiksi Amazonista sekä Applesta. Mutta Google sekä Facebook polkevat vielä samaa polkua.
Viimeisimmän kasvun ajurina on ollut omat sisällöt. Vuosi 2015 ja Stranger Things oli käännekohta Netflixin omalle tuotannolle. Aikaisemmin he olivat lisensoineet yksinoikeudella muiden sarjoja. Vuonna 2015 he ostivat käsikirjoituksen, mutta ryhtyivät tuottajaksi itse. Studiosta alkaen. Strager Thing julkaistiin 2016 ja samana vuonna se pääsi Golden Globe -ehdokkaaksi.
Hastings sekä Meyer nimeävät kolme tekijää, joka tekee Netflixistä erityisen:
- Ihmiset. Yrityskulttuurissa arvostettiin ihmistä yli prosessin.
- Innovaatiot. Painotus oli innovaatioissa yli tehokkuuden sekä
- Byrokratia. Sääntöjä sekä tarkkoja ohjeistuksia oli vähän.
Nämä yhdessä johtivat lahjakkuuskeskittymään. Netflixin kasvukaava on siis:
Ihmiset + Innovaatiot + Ei-byrokratia = Lahjakkuuskeskittymä
Selittäviä tekijöitä on Netflixin kyvykkyys luoda liiketoimintaa trendeissä. Ensimmäisessä aallossa he rakensivat liiketoiminnan internet-tilauksiin, kun kilpailijat toimivat kivijalkaliiketoiminnassa. Seuraavassa vaiheessa he ottivat käyttöön streaming-teknologian jakelutieksi. Ja viimeisin on ollut oma sisällöntuotanto.
Suomi mainittu! …. Blockbuster’s story is not an anomaly. The vast majority of firms fail when their industry shifts. Kodak failed to adapt from paper photos to digital. Nokia failed to adapt from flip phones to smartphones. AOL failed to adapt from dial-up internet to broadband.
Mainitsemisen arvoinen tekijä Netflixin tarinassa on suora palaute. Sillä he tarkoittavat, että kaikki saavat ja antavat välittömästi palautetta toistensa toiminnasta. Se korjaa nopeammin prosessia kuin yksikään työpaja. Mutta miten se saadaan toimimaan ilman, että ihmisten tunteita loukataan ja, että se toimii kehittävänä, niin on salaisuus jonka vain netflixläiset ja heidän yrityskulttuuri tietää. Kirjan pitkistä selityksistä huolimatta.
”Increase candor. Talented employees have an enormous amount to learn from one another. But the normal polite human protocols often prevent employees from providing the feedback necessary to take performance to another level. When talented staff members get into the feedback habit, they all get better at what they do while becoming implicitly accountable to one another, further reducing the need for traditional controls.”
Ja kun suora palaute korjaa toimintaa, niin voidaan poistaa säännöt sekä ohjeistus:
”Reduce controls. Start by ripping pages from the employee handbook. Travel policies, expense policies, vacation policies—these can all go. Later, as talent becomes increasingly denser and feedback more frequent and candid, you can remove approval processes throughout the organization, teaching your managers principles like, “Lead with context, not control,” and coaching your employees using such guidelines as, “Don’t seek to please your boss.””
Miten Netflix syntyi? Netflixin syntyhistoria on hyvä kertoa lyhetämättömänä:
“In the 1990s, I liked to rent VHS videos from the Blockbuster down the street from our house. I’d take two or three at a time and return them quickly to avoid late fees. Then one day I moved a pile of papers on the dining room table and saw a cassette that I’d watched weeks ago and forgotten to return. When I took the movie back to the store, the woman told me the fee: $40! I felt so stupid.”
Reed Hasting perusti Netflixin, koska koki saavansa huonoa palvelua sekä innostuivat Amazonin saamasta menestyksestä. Plus heillä oli lakupääoma aikaisemmasta yrityskaupasta.
Kuinka Netflix yhdisti pisteet? Niitä on kaiken kaikkiaan 10 ja omalla tavallaan se on kirjan punainen lanka. Connecting the dots….
- Tyrmäävät työkaverit
THE FIRST DOT This is the most critical dot for the foundation of the whole Netflix story. A fast and innovative workplace is made up of what we call “stunning colleagues”—highly talented people, of diverse backgrounds and perspectives, who are exceptionally creative, accomplish significant amounts of important work, and collaborate effectively. What’s more, none of the other principles can work unless you have ensured this first dot is in place.
- Suora palaute sekä auktoriteettien haastaminen
THE SECOND DOT If you have a group of people who are highly talented, thoughtful, and well-meaning, you can ask them to do something that is not at all natural but nonetheless incredibly helpful to a company’s speed and effectiveness. You can ask them to give each other loads of candid feedback and challenge authority.
- Poista säännöt ja lopeta ohjeistaminen
THE THIRD DOT Once you have a workforce made up nearly exclusively of high performers, you can count on people to behave responsibly. Once you have developed a culture of candor, employees will watch out for one another and ensure their teammates’ actions are in line with the good of the company. Then you can begin to remove controls and give your staff more freedom. Great places to start are the lifting of your vacation, travel, and expense policies. These elements give people more control over their own lives and convey a loud message that you trust your employees to do what’s right. The trust you offer will in turn instill feelings of responsibility in your workforce, leading everyone in the company to have a greater sense of ownership.
- Maksa markkinoita parempaa palkkaa ja pidä lahjakkuuskeskittymä tiiviinä.
THE FOURTH DOT In order to fortify the talent density in your workforce, for all creative roles hire one exceptional employee instead of ten or more average ones. Hire this amazing person at the top of whatever range they are worth on the market. Adjust their salary at least annually in order to continue to offer them more than competitors would. If you can’t afford to pay your best employees top of market, then let go of some of the less fabulous people in order to do so. That way, the talent will become even denser.
- Luo sekä toteuta luottamusta.
THE FIFTH DOT If you have the best employees on the market and you’ve instituted a culture of open feedback, opening up company secrets increases feelings of ownership and commitment among staff. If you trust your people to handle appropriately sensitive information, the trust you demonstrate will instigate feelings of responsibility and your employees will show you just how trustworthy they are.
- Poista päätöksenteko ja annan ihmisten omat bisnespäätöksensä.
THE SIXTH DOT If you have high talent density and organizational transparency firmly in place, a faster, more innovative decision-making process is possible. Your employees can dream big, test their ideas, and implement bets they believe in, even when in opposition to those hierarchically above them.
- Jokaisella työntekijällä on oikeus ”pito-testiin”
THE SEVENTH DOT The Keeper Test has helped to elevate the talent density at Netflix to a level rarely seen in other organizations. If each manager considers carefully, on a regular basis, whether every employee on the team is indeed the best choice for that position and replaces anyone who isn’t, performance across the organization soars to new heights.
- Varmista, että suora palaute toteutuu
THE EIGHTH DOT If you’re serious about candor at some point, you do need to implement mechanisms to assure candor happens. With just two institutional processes you can ensure that everyone gets candid developmental feedback at regular intervals.
THE NINTH DOT In a loosely coupled organization, where talent density is high and innovation is the primary goal, a traditional, control-oriented approach is not the most effective choice. Instead of seeking to minimize error through oversight or process, focus on setting clear context, building alignment of the North Star between boss and team, and giving the informed captain the freedom to decide.
- Sopeuta kulttuuria.
THE LAST DOT … FOR NOW When giving feedback with those from your own culture, use the 4A approach. But when giving feedback around the world, add a 5th A: The 4As are as follows: Aim to assist Actionable Appreciate Accept or decline Plus one makes 5: Adapt—your delivery and your reaction to the culture you’re working with to get the results that you need. We still have a lot to learn about integrating our corporate culture into our growing number of offices around the world. At most QBRs, we have at least one discussion about corporate culture. As the majority of our future growth is outside the US, we increasingly focus these discussions on how to make our values work in a global context. What we’ve learned is that in order to integrate your corporate culture around the world, above all you have to be humble, you have to be curious, and you have to remember to listen before you speak and to learn before you teach. With this approach, you can’t help but become more effective every day in this ever-fascinating multicultural world.
Suora palaute, jolla on positiivinen tavoite. Negatiivissävytteisellä palautteella ei ole sijaa.
“That’s when we coined the expression “Only say about someone what you will say to their face.” I modeled this behavior as best I could, and whenever someone came to me to complain about another employee, I would ask, “What did that person say when you spoke to him about this directly?” This is pretty radical. In most situations, both social and professional, people who consistently say what they really think are quickly isolated, even banished.”
Koska tutkimuksen mukaan vain suora palaute auttaa ihmistä saavuttamaan parempia kuin tuloksia kuin pelkkä kannustava palaute:
“In a 2014 study, the consulting firm Zenger Folkman collected data on feedback from almost one thousand people. They found that, despite the blissful benefits of praise, by a roughly three-to-one margin, people believe corrective feedback does more to improve their performance than positive feedback. The majority said they didn’t find positive feedback to have a significant impact on their success at all.”
Valmentamisesta tuttuja tilastoja:
“Statistics from the same survey:
⁃ 57 percent of respondents claim they would prefer to receive corrective feedback to positive feedback.
⁃ 72 percent felt their performance would improve if they received more corrective feedback.
⁃ 92 percent agreed with the comment, “Negative feedback, if delivered appropriately, improves performance.”
Miten aloittaa suoran palautteen antaminen?
- Esimiesten pitää ensin oppia ottamaan palautetta alaisiltaan, jonka jälkeen on mahdollista antaa omalle tiimilleen palautetta.
“The first is not the most intuitive. You might think the first step for cultivating candor would be to begin with what’s easiest: having the boss give copious feedback to her staff. I recommend instead focusing first on something much more difficult: getting employees to give candid feedback to the boss. This can be accompanied by boss-to-employee feedback. But it’s when employees begin providing truthful feedback to their leaders that the big benefits of candor really take off.”
Palautteen antaminen pitää olla osa agendaa:
”The first technique our managers use to get their employees to give them honest feedback is regularly putting feedback on the agenda of their one-on-one meetings with their staff. Don’t just ask for feedback but tell and show your employees it is expected. Put feedback as the first or last item on the agenda so that it’s set apart from your operational discussions. When the moment arrives, solicit and encourage the employee to give feedback to you (the boss) and then—if you like—you can reciprocate by giving feedback to them.”
Muista palautteen antamisen hetkellä antaa ihmisten tuntea, että on hyväksyttävää antaa palautetta:
”Your behavior while you’re getting the feedback is a critical factor. You must show the employee that it’s safe to give feedback by responding to all criticism with gratitude and, above all, by providing “belonging cues.” As Daniel Coyle, author of The Culture Code, describes them, such cues are gestures that indicate “your feedback makes you a more important member of this tribe” or “you were candid with me and that in no way puts your job or our relationship in danger; you belong here.” I speak with my leadership team frequently about displaying “belonging cues” in situations when an employee is providing feedback to the boss, because an employee who is courageous enough to give feedback openly is likely to worry, “Will my boss hold it against me?” or “Will this harm my career?” A belonging cue might be a small gesture, like using an appreciative tone of voice, moving physically closer to the speaker, or looking positively into that person’s eyes.”
Miten Netflixillä annetaan palautetta?
1. AIM TO ASSIST: Feedback must be given with positive intent. Giving feedback in order to get frustration off your chest, intentionally hurting the other person, or furthering your political agenda is not tolerated. Clearly explain how a specific behavior change will help the individual or the company, not how it will help you. “The way you pick your teeth in meetings with external partners is irritating” is wrong feedback. Right feedback would be, “If you stop picking your teeth in external partner meetings, the partners are more likely to see you as professional, and we’re more likely to build a strong relationship.”
2. ACTIONABLE: Your feedback must focus on what the recipient can do differently. Wrong feedback to me in Cuba would have been to stop at the comment, “Your presentation is undermining its own messages.” Right feedback was, “The way you ask the audience for input is resulting in only Americans participating.” Even better would have been: “If you can find a way to solicit contributions from other nationalities in the room your presentation will be more powerful.”
Miten Netflixillä vastaanotetaan palautetta?
3. APPRECIATE: Natural human inclination is to provide a defense or excuse when receiving criticism; we all reflexively seek to protect our egos and reputation. When you receive feedback, you need to fight this natural reaction and instead ask yourself, “How can I show appreciation for this feedback by listening carefully, considering the message with an open mind, and becoming neither defensive nor angry?”
4. ACCEPT OR DISCARD: You will receive lots of feedback from lots of people while at Netflix. You are required to listen and consider all feedback provided. You are not required to follow it. Say “thank you” with sincerity. But both you and the provider must understand that the decision to react to the feedback is entirely up to the recipient.
Miten Netflixillä poistettiin säännöt, ohjeistukset sekä rajoitteet? Lomaoikeudet poistettiin ja pomot näyttivät esimerkkiä lomalla olemisesta sekä kertoivat aktiivisesti mitä tekivät lomillaan. Kannustivat kaikkia samanlaiseen toimintaan.
Vapauksien antaminen tuo vastuullisuutta:
- GIVE FREEDOM TO GET RESPONSIBILITY
- ACT IN NETFLIX’S BEST INTEREST
- GREAT GAINS: FREE, FAST, AND (SURPRISINGLY) FRUGAL
Ennenkuin saa poistettua kaikki hallinnolliset reunaehdot, niin pitäisi olla firma täynnä dream teamia:
”Once you have developed a culture of candor, employees will watch out for one another and ensure their teammates’ actions are in line with the good of the company. Then you can begin to remove controls and give your staff more freedom. Great places to start are the lifting of your vacation, travel, and expense policies.”
Miten määrittelet dream teamin? Dream teamin määritelmä on “the success of Netflix is founded on these types of unlikely stories: small teams consisting exclusively of significantly above-average performers—what Reed refers to as dream teams—working on big hairy problems.”
…. ja sitten toteutetaan ”Rock-tähti -periaatteella”:
”But, as an engineer, I was familiar with a concept that has been understood in software since 1968, referred to as the “rock-star principle.” The rock-star principle is rooted in a famous study that took place in a basement in Santa Monica. At 6:30 a.m. nine trainee programmers were led into a room with dozens of computers. Each of them was handed a manila envelope explaining a series of coding and debugging tasks they would need to complete to their best ability in the next 120 minutes. Millions of keystrokes have since been devoted to discussing the results on the internet. The researchers expected to find that the best of the nine programmers would outperform his average counterpart by a factor of two or three. But of the group of nine, all of whom were at least adequate programmers, the best far outperformed the worst. The best guy was twenty times faster at coding, twenty-five times faster at debugging, and ten times faster at program execution than the programmer with the lowest marks. The fact that one of these programmers would so dramatically out-perform another has caused ripples across the software industry ever since, as managers grapple with how some programmers can be worth so much more than their perfectly adequate colleagues. With a fixed amount of money for salaries and a project I needed to complete, I had a choice. I could hire ten to twenty-five average engineers or I could hire one “rock-star” and pay significantly more than what I’d pay the others, if necessary.”
Väärin. Hastingsin mukaan Rock-tähti -periaatteen suhdeluku on lähemmäs 100-kertainen eikä 20-kertainen…..
Isot palkat….
”Big salaries are good for innovation.” People are most creative when they have a big enough salary to remove some of the stress from home. But people are less creative when they don’t know whether or not they’ll get paid extra. Big salaries, not merit bonuses, are good for innovation.
Differoituminen….
“Many imagine you lose your competitive edge if you don’t offer a bonus. We have found the contrary: we gain a competitive edge in attracting the best because we just put all that money into salary.”
Vinkki vitonen. Läpinäkyvyys videään myös työpaikkatarjouksiin…. ”Then we told all our employees they should start taking those calls from recruiters and tell us what they learned. Patty developed a database where everyone could input the salary data points they received from calls and interviews.”
Erilaistua voi monella eri tavalla….. The rule at Netflix when recruiters call is: “Before you say, ‘No thanks!’ ask, ‘How much?’”
Tiedätkö kuinka monta salaisuutta ihmisellä on? 13 salaisuutta, joista viittä hän ei ole koskaan paljastanut kenellekkään. Mutta salaisuuksien voima on, että ne ovat salaisuuksia kunnes ne eivät enää ole salaisuuksia…. STUFF OF SECRETS = SOS:
“SOS will be our term (not a Netflix term) for information you might commonly choose to keep quiet because it would be dangerous to divulge. Sharing the information might lead to a negative judgment, risk upsetting people, cause mayhem, or break up a relationship. Otherwise we wouldn’t feel an urge to keep it to ourselves. SOS information at work might be things like the following:
⁃ You are considering a reorganization and people might lose their jobs.
⁃ You’ve fired an employee but explaining why would hurt his reputation.
⁃ You have “secret sauce”: information you don’t want to leak out to your competitors.
⁃ You made a mistake that could hurt your reputation, maybe ruin your career.
⁃ Two leaders are in conflict, and if their teams knew, it would lead to unrest.
⁃ Employees could go to jail if they share certain financial data with a friend.”
Organizations are full of SOS. Every day, managers grapple with the questions: “Should I tell my people? And if so, at what risk?” But keeping quiet brings risks too, as Reed’s fear and falling productivity at Coherent Software demonstrated all those years ago.
Kun Netflixillä tehdään päätöksiä, niin niiden pitää olla hyviä. Hyvä päätös on:
⁃ “A solid grasp of the context,
⁃ feedback from people with different perspectives, and
⁃ awareness of all the options.”
On Netflix tehnyt virheitä(kin). Esim. Qwikster…..
We now say that it is disloyal to Netflix when you disagree with an idea and do not express that disagreement. By withholding your opinion, you are implicitly choosing to not help the company: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dDAbdMv14Is
THE KEEPER TEST:
IF A PERSON ON YOUR TEAM WERE TO QUIT TOMORROW, WOULD YOU TRY TO CHANGE THEIR MIND? OR WOULD YOU ACCEPT THEIR RESIGNATION, PERHAPS WITH A LITTLE RELIEF? IF THE LATTER, YOU SHOULD GIVE THEM A SEVERANCE PACKAGE NOW, AND LOOK FOR A STAR, SOMEONE YOU WOULD FIGHT TO KEEP.
Mitä meidän pitäisi tehdä kirjan perusteella?
Hastings ja Meyer haluavat huomioida, että heidän ajatuksensa ja menetelmät eivät sovi kaikkeen. Esimerkiksi he mainitsevat:
“With this in mind, you can consider your objective carefully before deciding when to opt for freedom and responsibility and when rules with process would be a better choice. Here are a set of questions you can ask in order to select the right approach:
⁃ Are you working in an industry where your employees’ or customers’ health or safety depends on everything going just right? If so, choose rules and process.
⁃ If you make a mistake, will it end in disaster? Choose rules and process.
⁃ Are you running a manufacturing environment where you need to produce a consistently identical product? Choose rules and process.”
Eli meidän pitää…. “But now, with the growth in importance of intellectual property and creative services, the percentage of the economy that is dependent on nurturing inventiveness and innovation is much higher and continually increasing.”
Mitä minun pitäisi itse tehdä?
Koska tutkimuksen mukaan vain suora palaute auttaa ihmistä saavuttamaan parempia tuloksia kuin pelkkä kannustava palaute, niin ryhtyä antamaan suoraa palautetta positiivisella tavoitteella. Sitä minun pitäisi tehdä – enemmän.
Yhteenveto
Kuusi Sanaa kirjasta: ”We hire you for your opinions”……. ”Every person in that room is responsible for telling me frankly what they think.”
