Nicole Haskel

Question 1:
After reading this case and considering the three aspects of effective teams, I believe that
Netflix performs high in team context, average in team composition and low in team processes. I
believe that Netflix’s teams perform high in team context because they have the adequate
resources and structure, and also have a culture that revolves around trust and performance
evaluations. The article highlights that the company “emphasizes freedom and responsibility…
whether it is about taking a vacation, flying business class… or accessing sensitive information”
(Ramachandran 1). This shows Netflix has a good foundation of trust to give their employees
these options and believes they will not take advantage of them. Netflix also expects employees
to give “feedback for one another… Anyone can review any other employee” (Ramachandran 3).
The fact that Netflix puts feedback and trust as such high values in the company demonstrates
that they are high in team context. I also believe that Netflix performs average in team
composition. This is because they do hire intelligent individuals and instill the personality trait of
openness through their method of “sunshining” which is “an apology of act of transparency in
front of colleagues” (Ramachandran 1). This method helps teams communicate better and be
more transparent. But, there is no evidence in the article there is much perceived or actual
diversity of members and it seems that most teams are larger in size. When it comes to team
processes, I believe that Netflix is low in this area because they seem more focused on
individuality than group output. There appears to be no team identity or cohesion as employees
are always focused on their own individual performance because, “it should not be a surprise if
you are let go” (Ramachandran 2). Employees are let go for many out of the blue reasons such as
“no longer being a star performer” (Ramachandran 3). This makes it difficult to focus on the
group performance and cohesion if employees are constantly thinking about what to do to not be
fired. There seems to also be a lot of relationship conflict in Netflix. For example, when David
Burt was fired for protecting the privacy of someone’s medical condition when he was directly
asked about it (Ramachandran 3). These reasons exemplify that individual output matters more
than team output.
 I do not think that the teams at Netflix are optimally successful. As much as I believe that
Netflix is doing a good job instilling values such as trust, feedback and openness into the
company, they lack the cohesion to be at its optimal success. It seems that employees are too
busy tiptoeing around being fired to become one as a company and the teams they are in. One
recommendation I would make is to avoid intimidating employees that “it should not be a
surprise if you are let go” (Ramachandran 2) and engage them in company wide bonding
activities. This will make employees less worrisome while also feeling more connected to Netflix
and its values.

Question 2:
A conflict I see in this case is between Ms. Nazario-Cranz and Mr. Hastings. In stage one,
there is a potential opposition or incompatibility when Ms. Nazario-Cranz “had taken some of
her team to get their hair done and bought makeup on the company’s dime” (Ramachandran 4).
This created the opportunity for a conflict to arise as Mr. Hastings asked Ms. Nazario-Cranz to
“sunshine” what she did and communicated to the group that this was wrong. This action
negatively affected Nazario-Cranz bringing us into stage two, cognition and personalization, of
the conflict stages. This is because she felt the conflict and frustration of being told she did
something wrong. She then moved into stage three as she tries to manage the conflict by
explaining her intentions and uses assertiveness to argue that “If a manager took two men out for
a round of golf and expensed the outing, it wouldn’t have been so controversial” (Ramachandran
4). Here Ms. Nazario-Cranz is using a competing conflict style because she is being assertive and
uncooperative, and moves to stage four by using defensive behavior to protect herself, while
projecting it as an injustice to women for her to be punished. In this fourth stage the interaction
begins between the two parties as Mr. Hastings responds and the conflict “spun into an issue of
gender equity” (Ramachandran 4). Eventually in the fifth and last stage of this process, later in
the year Mr. Hastings fired Ms. Nazario-Cranz (Ramachandran 4). It seemed like it was a
functional outcome as there was an open discussion and provided a medium for the problems to
be aired but in the end Mr. Hastings thought it was the best decision for the company to let Ms
Nazario-Cranz go. One recommendation I would make as the company moves forward to
manage or prevent these types of conflict in the future is to try to consider a compromise and
seek integrative solutions. It seems that Netflix just fires someone whenever they encounter a
conflict with them which is not very productive for individual and company growth. If
executives try to move the conflict in a private setting and treat conflicts with important
employees as compromises, Netflix would benefit with more loyal employees and learning from
their mistakes.

References
Robbins, S.P., and T.A. Judge. Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Boston: Pearson. 2018.
Ramachandran, Shalini, and Joe Flint. “At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings
Unsettle the Ranks.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 25 Oct. 2018,
www.wsj.com/articles/at-netflix-radical-transparency-and-blunt-firings-unsettle-the-ranks-
1540497174.