I actually think this is important. Working with an asshole is a big problem, and I fully admire leaders who know when it's time to let someone go because the situation cannot improve. It certainly beats working in a caustic environment because people are afraid to fire someone.
Wasn't Netflix referring to cutting people when they became idle?
Their whole motto is "we're a professional sports team" so if you can't play ball (or there's no longer a ball for you to play with) then you're cut from the team. This was different from the family viewpoint where a company takes an employee and tries to grow them or find new work for them.
They're not really referring to "culture" fit, team compatibility, or even cutting assholes, just whether or not you can provide value to Netflix at that moment.
The problem I have with pro sports analogies is that productivity is much easier to quantify and track in sports than most businesses.
One usually must spend a decent amount of time/energy tracking and making the case for their own productivity, which of course, lowers their actual productivity.
alas, usually in cutting environments like this the caustic assholes are the ones who stay and the ones who haven't presented their output in the best way are the ones who will be cut.
Of course people have to be smart about cutting, and things are not going to go right if the leaders are themselves unable to identify actual negative net influencers.
But in my own experience, I've worked at one specific place that was very very good about identifying people who plainly didn't help and letting them go. It helped immensely over time: the culture was really good (people were really invested in their job, and loved working as a team) and the retention rate was about 6x higher than most places in the same field.
They didn't use bogus metrics or anything, it was always a "feeling" kind of thing. If several people said someone was not helping, they were most likely right. It was arbitrary I admit, but rarely wrong.
You're assuming that you have to be an asshole to get/make your results noticed. And yes, those who sit in a corner doing stuff nobody cares about will be fired, and rightfully so.
I think the implication was that those who sit in a corner doing stuff fundamental to the company's success, who don't present themselves well to the decision makers, will still get cut.
I actually think this is important. Working with an asshole is a big problem, and I fully admire leaders who know when it's time to let someone go because the situation cannot improve. It certainly beats working in a caustic environment because people are afraid to fire someone.