Netflix generates about $2.82 million in revenue per employee.
Behind that number is a distinctive way employees are expected to think and act.
They question their own assumptions, actively seek opposing views, and make decisions themselves.
These are not just cultural values—they are behaviors practiced through everyday work.
For HR leaders in Japan, they offer clues to how Talent Development can contribute to Market Development.

In HLS Global Case Research, Peemo gathers and reports public Evidence about how employees actually work. Dash analyzes what those behaviors may mean for Talent Development, using The Extraordinary Leader™, DialogueWORKS, and Precision Questioning and Answering (PQA) as analytical lenses.

Peemo:
“Dash, I found something unusual in Netflix’s approach to decision-making.

Netflix does not simply tell employees to speak up.

For significant decisions, an Informed Captain is responsible for making the judgment. But before deciding, that person is expected to actively seek different opinions—including disagreement from people at different levels.

Netflix calls this Farming for Dissent.”

Dash:
“That distinction is important.

There is a big difference between saying,
‘Let me know if you disagree,’
and deliberately going out to find people who may see the situation differently.

The first waits for dissent.
The second searches for it.
From a Talent Development perspective, that is a very different employee behavior.”

Peemo:
“And Netflix does not use a committee to make the final decision. The Informed Captain listens, considers the different views, and then makes the judgment.

After the decision, employees are expected to disagree and commit. When the result becomes clear, the decision-maker reflects on what worked and what did not so others can learn.”

Dash:
“So the purpose of dissent is not consensus.

It is better judgment.

That immediately makes me think about Mental Models in DialogueWORKS.”

1. Challenge Your Own Mental Model

Dash:
“We often assume we are looking objectively at facts. But we interpret what we see through our experience, knowledge, values, assumptions, and previous successes.

Suppose a manager says:
‘Younger employees lack initiative.’

What is the actual Evidence?”

Peemo:
“Perhaps an employee did not speak during a meeting.
Or the employee asked the manager for confirmation before acting.”

Dash:
“Exactly.

But watch what can happen inside our thinking:

Did not speak
→ Has no opinion
→ Waits for instructions
→ Lacks initiative

The first statement may be observable Evidence.

The rest may be interpretation.

Experience is extremely valuable. But past success can also make new possibilities harder to see.

So before judging another person or a market situation, we should ask:

‘What did I actually observe?’
‘What meaning did I add?’
‘What assumption am I making?’
‘What might someone with a different Mental Model see?’”

Peemo:
“Then Farming for Dissent has a deeper purpose than simply collecting opinions.”

Dash:
“Yes.
From a DialogueWORKS perspective, I would describe it as:
deliberately exposing your Mental Model to people who may hold different Mental Models.
That is an important learning behavior.”

2. Don’t Wait for Different Views — Go Looking for Them

Peemo:
“This also seems connected to psychological safety, which is a major HR topic in Japan.”

Dash:
“It does—but Netflix makes me think we should take that idea one step further.

Psychological safety is often discussed as:
‘Employees can disagree with their manager without fear.’
That matters.

But consider a different situation:
‘The decision-maker needs different opinions in order to make a better decision.’

Now dissent is no longer simply something the organization tolerates.
It becomes part of how work gets done.”

Peemo:
“So an employee does not have to wait until someone asks, ‘Does anyone disagree?’”

Dash:
“Right.

The employee—and especially the person responsible for the decision—actively searches for another perspective:
‘Who sees this differently?’
‘What Evidence might I be missing?’
‘Which assumption are we treating as fact?’
‘Who has expertise that I do not have?’

That is a concrete behavior HR can observe and develop.”

Peemo:
“And this seems to overlap with some of the competencies in The Extraordinary Leader™.”

Dash:
“It does.

Zenger Folkman’s research identified 19 differentiating competencies associated with leaders in the top 10%, across five broad areas: Character, Personal Capability, Focus on Results, Interpersonal Skills, and Leading Change.

Among them are behaviors related to problem solving, decision making, initiative, Learning Agility, collaboration, innovation, and customer and external focus.

I am not saying Netflix employees have been assessed against those 19 competencies.

What interests me is that some of the behaviors Netflix expects from employees overlap with behaviors found among highly effective leaders.”

Peemo:
“Then there is another Talent Development question.

Why wait until someone becomes a manager before developing these behaviors?”

Dash:
“Exactly.

The Extraordinary Leader™ does not require us to think of leadership only as something exercised by people with managerial titles.

A person can exercise leadership by achieving their own goals in ways that contribute to the goals of the team.

That means judgment, initiative, problem solving, collaboration, and learning should not suddenly begin after promotion.

Everyday work itself can become the place where leadership behavior is developed.”

3. Question the Problem Before Solving It

Peemo:
“If people deliberately seek different perspectives, could they discover that the original problem itself was wrong?”

Dash:
“That is where Precision Questioning and Answering—PQA—becomes especially useful.

Suppose HR starts with this question:
‘How can we make younger employees more proactive?’

Before designing another training program, I would question the question.”

Peemo:
“What would you ask?”

Dash:
“For example:

‘What Evidence tells us they lack initiative?’
‘Is asking a manager before acting really Evidence of low initiative?’
‘How many meaningful decisions are employees actually allowed to make?’
‘Could managerial control itself be reducing opportunities to exercise judgment?’

Then the problem may change.”

Peemo:
“From:
‘How do we train employees to become more proactive?’
to something like—”

Dash:
“—‘How do we increase the opportunities employees have to exercise judgment in everyday work?’

Exactly.

That is no longer simply a training question.
It becomes a Talent Development question about the way work itself is designed.”

Peemo:
“That connects directly to Netflix’s Context not Control approach.

Managers provide employees with context and clarity rather than making every decision for them. Employees are expected to use that context to exercise their own judgment.”

Dash:
“And that may be one of the most interesting lessons for HR.

Employee development does not happen only when someone attends training.

It can happen repeatedly through work:
Understand context → Challenge assumptions → Seek different views → Make a judgment → Act → Reflect → Learn

That is development through real decisions.”

From Talent Development to Market Development

Peemo:
“But Dash, how does this connect with Market Development?”

Dash:
“Think about where a new market opportunity often begins.

An employee notices something unexpected.
A customer uses a product in a way nobody anticipated.
A complaint does not fit the usual pattern.
A customer problem cannot be explained by the existing assumptions.
A small change appears in the market.

The first challenge is not necessarily having more market data.
It may be how the employee responds to what they notice.”

Peemo:
“So if the signal does not fit the employee’s existing Mental Model, it can simply be ignored.”

Dash:
“Exactly.

But another employee might stop and ask:
‘Why is this happening?’
‘What assumption might be wrong?’
‘Who sees this differently?’
‘What is the real customer problem?’

Then that employee connects with others, gathers Evidence, makes a judgment, and acts.

That is why I see an important connection:

Talent Development
→ Better Employee Judgment
→ Better Decisions
→ New Customer Value
→ Market Development

This does not mean Netflix’s culture alone explains its $2.82 million in revenue per employee. Technology, global scale, content economics, its business model, and many other factors clearly matter.

Nor should Japanese organizations simply copy Netflix.

The more useful question is what we can learn from the employee behaviors behind the system.”

Peemo:
“Then what should HR leaders look for inside their own companies?”

Dash:
“I would start with one question:

Are employees becoming better decision-makers through their everyday work?

And then go deeper.

When employees encounter something unexpected, do they question their own assumptions?
Do they actively seek people who see things differently?
Are they given meaningful opportunities to make judgments?
And after acting, do they learn from the result?

For companies seeking new customers and new markets in Japan, those may not be separate questions from Market Development.

They may be where Market Development begins.”

Akira Chida (Dash)
SmartWorks
HLS Global Case Research