5 ms·
I disagree with both elements of this premise: 1) that Amazon is cruel, and 2) that the objectives are achievable by other means. Performance, as I say above,
by xibalba 5y ago
I disagree with both elements of this premise: 1) that Amazon is cruel, and 2) that the objectives are achievable by other means.
Performance, as I say above, is the point. Amazon pushes very hard for performance. Achieving high performance is difficult and uncomfortable. But to classify the activities which yield high performance as "cruel" is an interpretation. This article and the NYT articles it cites bend over backwards to paint Amazon in a negative light in this respect. But here's' the thing, Amazon is very transparent about both their aims and means. Amazon encourages and incentives workers to quit bc Bezos (quite correctly, in my opinion) recognizes the "march to mediocrity" as a basic reality of large orgs. Amazon offers training which will help employees find different jobs and pays quit bonuses. Flat out: that's not cruelty. It is actually a fairly humane and "progressive" approach to a difficult and uncomfortable challenge.
Implicit in these claims is of course (the fairly absurd, in my opinion) belief that there are some more effective means of achieving sustained and very high performance that are more comfortable for employees. This, to me, is the root flaw in the "cruelty" interpretation. It basically requires us to be believe that Amazon is run by sadistic people that are aware of better means by which to achieve sustained high performance, but that they choose more uncomfortable, "less humane" options instead. If I'm wrong, I simply ask that the people on the other side of the argument point to proven methods (that they interpret as not cruel) which yield the kind of sustained high performance that Amazon has achieved.
- luffapi 5y agoIt’s fairly well known that Amazon can only hire “mediocre” tech talent precisely due to their hostile work environment and relatively low pay. Top people go elsewhere.
- slownews45 5y agoThat's interesting - at least from what I've seen they've been able to lowball folks (relatively) and still get hires in. Given that they can only hire mediocre tech talent, this speaks to perhaps the success of the HR management that they were able to build what looks like a market leading offering in AWS (the scale of which is absolutely huge - all built by these mediocre engineer!)
- luffapi 5y agoStructural barriers to entry will mask all manner of incompetence (c.f. Microsoft in the 90s). It’s important for our industry to recognize what actually leads to success instead of cargo culting horrible managerial practices that only succeed because the practitioners have first mover advantage, regulatory capture, network effects…
- xibalba 5y agoSeems like a pretty dubious claim. I'd love to seem some sources to support it. Since inception, Amazon has achieved nearly unprecedented growth of revenue, profits, employee head count, customer base, product offerings, and just about any other business metric. You believe all of this was achieved with mediocre talent? I doubt it, but maybe you're right. Either way, so what? If Jeff Bezos has figured out how to create an innovative, world leading, ultra high performance business with mediocre talent, his accomplishments (vis-à-vis Amazon) are even more admirable.
- thebooktocome 5y agoBy this definition, there are no cruel companies in a capitalist society. It's a nice world to live in, but it doesn't really conform to experience.