《Powerful》读后感锦集

《Powerful》是一本由Patty McCord著作，ebook出版的图书，本书定价：73，页数：，特精心从网络上整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

《Powerful》精选点评：

●Insightful and inspiring. 但是同时要结合硅谷的大环境和Netflix的公司阶段去理解。从一个创业者的角度讲，作者讲的东西也没有那么universal。

●效率至上，直率沟通。这种模式是高强度的，也得益于Netflix有着强大的人才号召力。缺少了点人情。

●骑行记录啊 奈飞文化每一条都不突兀，好多公司也许都说自己在做，但主要看是最后否真的在执行。

●We're sport team for wining, not family members for happy.

●奈飞在人力资源方面的几个颠覆性理念：1. 招进来的每一个员工都是有权力的 2.最吸引优秀员工的不是薪酬福利，而是工作本身，以及他们可以跟同样优秀的人一起共事 3. 最好的培训是给员工有挑战的工作任务，让员工在实际工作中学习和成长，一项任务做完了，对员工的培训也就结束了。 4. 人力资源的核心任务就是打造高绩效的企业文化，有了高绩效，才能吸引最优秀的人才，挽留住那些最优秀的员工。5. 在绩效管理方面，奈飞也不是像很多公司那样，每年进行一次年终评估和反馈，而是平时不定期进行反馈。奈飞的两个有代表性的文化准则：1. 信任和极端诚实（没有报销审批制度，领导力调研投票实名制）2. 完全沟通（让公司的每个员工都充分理解业务，随便问一位员工，公司近期最重要的几件事是什么。如果答不出来，则沟通还不够详尽。）

●推荐这本书。一，在同类型书籍中属废话少的，观点简洁，几乎不重复。二，我曾经认定，只有人人挤破脑门去服务的顶级公司这些HR的观点才有效。直到我也遇见了一些顶级或有相当潜力的人才并与之愉快的共事，我开始检讨自己的浅薄，并在阅读的过程中频频点头。

●赶在四月的尾巴完成了本月阅读计划。去年第一次读只是好奇奈飞“奇葩”的团队文化；这次review过程中逐渐带入目前实际工作中的案例和思考，尤其对“只招成年人”这一点很有共鸣。另外推荐书中提到的 “Coursera 如何与FB和Google争夺优秀人才” 一文，相信会对创业公司的招聘带来些许启发。

●国内按照这种标准 BAT 也招不够人（当然本来 BAT 的平均水平也未必高到哪去）。有些业务也许确实要堆人，有些业务加一堆不靠谱的人除了增加经理的 Scope 对团队生产力完全是负向的。一旦有幸和书中描述的这种自驱、主动、专业、自学能力强的人合作过（如沐春风），再和不靠谱的人合作绝对是巨大的痛苦...

●我之前对netflix的印象只有工资超高 竞争很激烈 一旦不行立马会被辞退。看完之后觉得很多点都还挺赞同的，随便说几点： 1. 决策层尽可能的透明 坦诚 公开化。员工都不傻 领导层不用成天光说好话 让大家觉得公司在朝一个积极的方向走。每个员工都应该了解公司的决策，才能像老板一样工作。 2. 员工之间有什么评论和感受 觉得对方可以做得更好 都可以直接说。manager觉得手下的人哪里需要改进 需要直接说 及时止损 而不是等到年终review的时候。 3. 比起年终奖 股票refresh 更能让人有动力努力工作的是和一群A Player在一起干有意义有挑战的事情。

●提供另一种公司物种法则，发人深省。

《Powerful》读后感(一)：肤浅的书

作者基本是按照哲学的思维方式，一句话概括：A disciplined mind with radical honesty, and strong and fact-based opinion, will test all ideas and hypothesis rigorously.

资本家唯利是图的本质，从来头到结尾，人只是一个工具（功能），没有把人当人看，很肤浅的书。当然薪水足够高，人是可以接受把自己当作高能工具。

《Powerful》读后感(二)：几个背景知识

这个月抽时间仔细的读了国内外所有跟Netflix企业文化有关的文章报道、刊物和书籍。 弄清楚了几点，这些是国内很多HR&创业导师没有提的：

1.现在国内创业公司还有各种HR传阅的中英文版本应该是很早以前的，新的版本在他们官网上（硅谷很多公司会把自己的企业文化详细的放在自己的官网上，很多其它公司的文化也很值得一读）；

2.Patty McCord是culture deck的参与者，公司的CEO和很多员工也参与其中。这个deck源于Reed Hasting写给面试的候选人供以了解公司的deck；

3.Netflix每年的year end review很简单，line manager的评判标准是如果这个员工要离职/要去竞争对手那里，你会不会留他。如果答案是不会，这个员工就要move on。Patty McCord离开的大背景是那年分拆后的股价大幅度下跌，然后Reed用这个方法evaluate自己的one down，发现有一个人他不会挽留了；

《Powerful》读后感(三)：拿来主义虽好 可不要全部套用哦

开始读的时候，对于把员工当做成年人这一点深有体会。太多的公司觉得他们的员工Stupid，需要约束和规范。其实，没有人是Stupid的，腹黑一点，很多时候大家是在装Stupid。只有赋予员工自由，才能激发他们最大的潜能。

读到Radical Honesty的时候，心里有点小小的质疑。这应该只符合Geek和Nerd的世界，对于人际关系复杂的企业，应该很难推行下去。

最后，到了Lay-off这一章，开始有些五味杂陈。这可能只是个乌托邦吧，对于start-up，需要不断更换新鲜的血液，他们是最适合公司快速发展的。但未必适合所有的公司，比如已经成熟的公司，太多的既得利益者会形成巨大的阻力。

但是作者的中心思想真的很赞。一切以业务与客户为导向，把员工的学习和成长作为最大的Perks，基于透明和沟通的方式去解决问题。也许其他公司不能完全Copy这一套文化，至少也可以咂摸个中滋味，获取点滴灵光，然后转化运用，可能也会取得不错的效果。毕竟，谁能说这就是最好的文化了呢？

《Powerful》读后感(四)：其实你是个运动员

别说在国内了，即便在硅谷，Neflix都是传奇一般的存在：基本只招有经验的人，还给高于湾区市场价25-50%的工资，这些年股票也涨的飞起。随之而来的是压力——别想混日子，一但觉得你不适合所在岗位了，他们会不留情面地解雇你。

这本《奈飞文化手册》解释了为啥工资高于市场价。他们觉得工资是未来的指引，而市场价是现在和过去的数字。他们衡量一个岗位的价值，是考量这个岗位未来会为公司创造多大的利益。

这本书也解释了为啥随时解雇雇员。虽然大多数公司都是at-will，即双方可以随时终止雇佣合同关系，但真正随时let you go，尤其这样白纸黑字写出来的公司并不多见。大多数公司多少有点缓冲期。比如亚麻臭名昭著的PIP。但Neflix认为，hiring和firing一直是公司对于你这个人和所在岗位的匹配度的考量。即便你干的很好，一旦你的岗位发生了变化，未来所要求的技能你并不能满足，也只能友好地跟你再见了。就像组建足球队一样，哪怕你是叱诧风云多年的大明星，只要战略战术有改，在可预见的未来你踢不了现在的位置了，也只能让你下场。运营公司不是养育家庭，这可是真金白银的商业社会。

这听起来很吓人，因为它讲了大实话。我看过太多公司高举着『welcome to the family』的大旗，该下手时依然决绝。我很欣赏Neflix的诚实，因为从公司方面和个人发展角度看，这都是一记响亮的耳光。那么问题来了：怎么知道你的岗位会不会发生变化呢？首先，一定会发生变化。第二，保持大局观。好好研究你们公司的P&L和org chart，经常和别的团队的人聊一聊，和公司外，行业内的人聊一聊。第三，stay limber，永远准备变化。

Stay limber太重要了。WFH以来我有时感到焦虑，毕竟跳槽到新公司没多久，还没认识多少人就在家办公了。少了茶水间走道里的social，我时常担心错过了高层的鼓点，自己的方向会有偏差。我老板如是回答我：正因为WFH，才更应该去和business partner经常沟通，不要错过任何一次earning call，眼观六路耳听八方。也正因为WFH，你有更多的时间去学习，保持竞争力，随时准备变化。这也未尝不是一件好事。

是啊，身边很多人，能奋斗到现在位置的，大多都是学习能力很强的人。可太多人在工作中迅速丢失了这样的能力。很多人抱怨在美国有职场天花板，升不上去。但以大多数的人的努力程度，还远远够不上抱怨外部环境的资格。你说有人就是运气好，工作能力不咋滴，会搞关系也升上去了。可是别忘了，经营关系也是职场极其重要的能力啊！别说职场了，想要运营好家庭，经营好感情，养育好孩子，都需要不断地学习和调整。人生就是和搭档一起踢足球，不学习怎么跟得上战术变化？

《Powerful》读后感(五)：Utopia in company hr management

Actually the book I wanted to find is 《Culture Deck》of the Netflix. I thought this is the paper version of this book, but I find out that I am wrong. This is the book from Netflix’s former HR director, Patty McCord. She is also the co-creator of NETFLIX Culture Deck.

There are a lot of new ideas or you can say views of how to do the people management in company. Likes you should let everyone in the company to know the exact business of it and how the business running. Or not everyone should be in the company forever. Or the salary should not be confidential.

I think these are somehow the main idea of the culture deck. I now understand why there is some voice from the internet about that most companies will dead if they try to follow the NETFLIX’s guidance. Because they are so anti-traditional in management.

age 8: “Our first big realization was that the remaining people were the highest performers, and it taught up that the best thing you can do for employees is hire only high performers wo work alongside them. It’s a perk(津贴) far better than foosball or free sushi or even a big signing bonus or the holy grail of stock stood deliverables: that’s the powerful combination.” When I first read this, I don’t understand why the writer keep mentioning that the money is not the key to motivate the employees. I can’t believe that one guy will keep high performance without fair pay. First I just thought it is the tricky issue for start-up company which we always called drawing a pancake. But when I read to Chapter 7, I was told that Netflix’s principle it to pay top of market. This means after you get enough paid, you will persuade somethings level higher. Like the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

age 15: “Telling people, ‘Here’s exactly where we are, and here’s what we’re trying to accomplish.’ The more time managers spend communicating and elaborating and being transparent about the job to be done, about the challenges the business is facing and the larger competitive context, the less important policies, approvals, and incentives are.” DK is the first company that achieves this in my career. Really appreciate it.

age 22: “Reportedly 78 percent of consumers have failed to complete a purchase or other transaction because of a poor service experience, and the costs to businesses in the United States have been estimated at $62 billion annually.” “Despite attempts to offer customer service through computer bots or preprogrammed FAQs or messaging systems, face-to-face or voice-to-voice service is far and away most effective” You should really consider about this when you do your CRM work. Ironic[aɪˈrɒnɪk] a.具有讽刺意味的

age 23: “As sports coaches will tell you, there’s no better way to learn how to perform than to be in the game.” I am now in the game of a start-up and try to create somehow a new CRM methodology. Let’s try to review 2 years later.

age 27: “How do you know when people are well enough informed？ (Here is about the idea that everyone in the company should understand the running logic of the company’s business) Here’s my measure. If you stop any employee, at any level of the company, in the break room or the elevator and ask what are the five most important things the company is working on for the next six months, that person should be able to tell you, rapid fire, one, two, three, four, five, ideally using the same words you’ve used in your communications to the staff and, if they’re really good, in the same order. If not, the heartbeat isn’t strong enough yet.” I am sure most company can’t achieve this. Only the one who focuses on slogans like the 0.5% strategy in 2017 MT will try to make everyone clear about it, but only on the surface. They won’t tell how to achieve the 0.5% strategy or the logic in the back. They will also not discuss with you about the feedback and the GTC of the strategy. The idea of this chapter is that you should share the real logic and the goal of your business to all your employees.

age 43: “As a leader, you should model this, showing, not just telling, that you want people to speak up and that you can be told bad news directly and disagree with. Otherwise most people will never be truly open with you. A study by Deloitte showed that 70 percent of employees in a wide range of sectors ‘admit to remaining [rɪˈmeɪnɪŋ]a.仍需要做的；还需要处理的 silent about issues that might compromise[ˈkɒmprəmaɪz] v. 妥协；折中performance.” Will try my best to keep this in mind.

age 68: “Intense, open debate over business decisions is thrilling[ˈθrɪlɪŋ]a.惊险的；紧张的 for teams, and they will respond to the opportunity to engage in it by offering the very best of their analytical powers.” I don’t believe it could be used for the company which has Chinese background. Let’s wait and see.

age 72: “Discussing the military’s performance during the Iraq war, Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary at the time, 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.’” “You’ve got to hire now the team you wish to have in the future.” This is a good idea for me to guide me at team hiring. High potential means nothing in some time, I mean the moment of your company when you need hire somebody for some position.

age 81: “When I consult to company leaders and their team managers, probably the most difficult advice for them to accept is that they don’t owe their people anything more than ensuring that the company is making a great product that serves the customer well and on time. They don’t owe people the chance to take on a role they’re not prepared for and don’t have the talents for.” This is so real, you will feed guilty sometimes. “Managers should not be expected to be career planners. In today’s fast-moving business environment, trying to play that role can be dangerous.” I am somehow a kind of this role. But I think I am more like a coach than a planner. I won’t tell team members how their career should be. I just let them think of it by themselves and share my experience and opinion with them. Provide the practice opportunities if I could create in company’s plan range.

age 85: “Sometimes people who were just right for an organization at a certain point and loved working for it are best off moving to a new organization with a similar set of challenges and environment. I told this engineer, ‘it’s okay. You don’t have to be part of it. You may be most happy in a fifty-person organization. Maybe that’s where you find your greatest joy.’” Quite like the D’s speech on 23th meeting Nov. about the leverage of the key employees.

age 87: “The ideal is for people to take charge of developing themselves; this drives optimal growth for both individuals and companies.” This is how I did and what I will keep doing.

age 108: “Retention is not a good measure of team-building success; having a great person in every single position on the team is the best measure.”

“Sometimes it’s important to let even people who have done a great job go in order to make space for high performers in new functions or with different skills.”

“Bonuses, stock options, high salaries, and even a clear path to promotion are not the strongest draw for high performers. The opportunity to work with teams of other high performers whom they’ll learn from and find it exhilarating to work with is by far the most powerful lure.”

age 113: “How much extra revenue might that great first choice be able to help produce？ Might she be able to ensure that you beat out your competitor on the launch of a fabulous new search system, especially if she gets started now instead of three months down the road？” This could be a way which worth to try. For example: when you want to hire one to develop a new segment. You need evaluate that when and how much he/she could bring the revenue or numbers of customers in fixed time.

age 119: “They withhold the information(salary in confidential) partially because so many are following some below-top-of-market percentile rule, and they think their employees will feel they should be getting compensated at a higher overall market level. They also feel that specific individuals will react badly if they learn they’re making less than colleagues they perceive to be doing work of comparable value.” Seems it is a global solution for make the salary as confidential information.

age 127: “If you’re a manager who has no latitude [ˈlætɪtjuːd]n.维度；选择(做什么事或做事方式)的自由 to do away with annual reviews, then fine, but go ahead and start having the kinds of frequent one-on-one meetings with your people that Scotty Bowman described. This is both much more effective and more humane [hjuːˈmeɪn] 善良的; 仁慈的; 人道的 ” It is quite the same idea like Andy’s《High Output Management》. I still remember that in my former MNC experience, normally you need 2~3 months to prepare the annual review material for your boss. Especially in MT time, Mr.P is so care about this. It seems his work is only this yearly report.

age 134: “That commitment to achievement is what we want to foster, not the expectation that as long as you’re working hard, the company will have your back.”

“If I hire people to rebuild my garage, when they’re done I don’t need them to rebuild the back of my house.” It sounds sad, but reasonable. Most of us feel shake about this idea, maybe cause that we have a lot of state-own companies where you could spend your whole life in your career. Also the education or effect from our parents. In their times, government will take care of your career and life. What you need to do, is just follow.

本文章为汉语心得记录网文章频道经典文章提供，版权归原作者所有，转载请注明出处