7 ms·

From what I've heard from their former employees (engineer / corporate, not warehouse), the best employer bit is laughable

by ikiris 5y ago

metalliqaz 5y ago
I can recall horror stories from their engineers when I was in grad school (around 2004 or so). So I think it is well entrenched.
ethbr0 5y ago
To give intent the broadest benefit of the doubt, maybe that's why they wanted to encode the goal in a principle. Changing Amazon's corporate culture at this point has to be like relocating the Alps.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  Ballmer -> Nadella shows that it is possible.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Curious on folks who have been at both places. My impression is that Microsoft runs a more centralized culture than Amazon?
    - Exmoor 5y ago
      Well, the biggest difference is probably scale. Amazon has roughly 10x the number of direct employees as Microsoft spread throughout a much wider range of job types. Some of this is inherent due to what Amazon's business is, but a big chunk of it is that Microsoft outsources essentially every job that's not at the absolute core of their business. Anything outside of that is outsourced to vendors. Microsoft's management of these vendors is basically "make us happy as cheaply as possible or you're fired" and the results for the employees of those companies is about what you'd expect.
- slumdev 5y ago
  The culture will slowly rot as the company gets larger and as the real visionaries (good or bad) become increasingly disconnected from the boots on the ground. We're already seeing things like people getting hired and then PIPed within months so that their managers can avoid firing the reports they like...
- haswell 5y ago
  Yeah, in 2021, employees increasingly expect this from their employers. Of course this could just be for optics and to claim "see, we care", but I think interpretation misses the broader context. In light of "The Great Resignation", and increasing awareness and activism around work/life balance, socially conscious employers, etc. this kind of move is required. At worst, it's a survival mechanism. A more charitable take is that leadership actually wants to change things. In either case, if they actually implement this, it's good for employees even if leadership was forced to do this by the current climate.
cwilkes 5y ago
Well it does say “strive”. Like I’m striving to get on the olympics pole vaulting team by watching it on TV.
- scrooched_moose 5y ago
  It really reminds me of this exchange from Better Off Ted: Veronica: There is no program to green the building. Ted: Yeah there is. They made a commercial about it. Veronica: I didn't say there wasn't a commercial about greening the building. I said there is no program to green the building. Ted: So it's all a lie? Veronica: They prefer to look at it as a dream. Ted: But one they're not working towards? Veronica: Are you working toward all your dreams, Ted? Then stop pointing fingers.
kube-system 5y ago
Maybe that's why they added it?
koboll 5y ago
Probably why it's a leadership principle now. When I started there, the first thing I noticed, reading the LPs, was a conspicuous lack of anything employee-centric, which most other big companies have somewhere in their mission statement.
gameman144 5y ago
In all fairness, maybe that's why they're adding this: the workplace culture and irresponsibility of Amazon are the main things I hear criticized a lot, so this could be them trying to actually address that. I know Amazon, more than most companies, actually rates engineers along these axes. Then again, this could just be PR mumbo jumbo.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Then again, this could just be PR mumbo jumbo. It's just PR mumbo jumbo until they consistently display these principles (and let their stock price take a hit because of them, if that's what it takes). Even if "leadership principles" are currently super important in Amazon's culture, there's going to be massive inertia around behaviors and attitudes that satisfied the older set but violate the new ones. For instance, are they going to immediately scrap their automated system that evaluates and terminates workers without human intervention (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-28/fired-by-bot-amazon-turns-to-machine-managers-and-workers-are-losing-out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-28/fired-by-...), because it clearly violates these new principles?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gameman144 5y ago
    I dunno. Everything takes time, and I think it's more fair to evaluate them on incremental progress. If I said "I want to be more Earth-friendly" and decide to add reusable grocery bags to my regimen, I'd hope that people wouldn't lambaste me for not yet going vegan, selling my car, and doing away with my AC unit. If there were no additional changes beyond my shopping bags, then sure, say that I was spouting nonsense. There's a lot to be said for consistent incremental progress toward a goal, though. (The automated system is a great example, though, of a system ostensibly working against that goal. Much like me wanting to be Earth-friendly, then buying a new Hummer)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
eCa 5y ago
First thought here as well. On the other hand, that’s a new principle and would require massive changes[1] in the near future if the leaders at the top really mean it. [1] I say that as someone who has no first hand knowledge of the inner workings of Amazon.
steelframe 5y ago
I've got a personal email from a manager at AWS still sitting in my inbox, and I don't want to reply to it because I have heard so many horror stories from former Amazon employees. When your reputation in the industry is so bad that potential hires don't even want to start a conversation with you, then you definitely have a problem as an employer. With this new principle, perhaps Amazon is recognizing this as a real problem with respect to recruitment and retention of people with experience.
- jedmeyers 5y ago
  “perhaps Amazon is recognizing this as a real problem” The real choices here seems to be: - amazon is “stupid” and does not recognize it as a problem - amazon is well aware, but does not care, since it benefits them in some way
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    It could simply be that it is not a problem yet, but is becoming one. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-worker-shortage-2021-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-wo...
    - scotuswroteus 5y ago
      You should have linked to the bill that just came out of the Judiciary Committee
  - rualca 5y ago
    > amazon is well aware, but does not care, since it benefits them in some way Given Amazon's egregious attrition rate and their yearly decimation policy, it's not very likely that they are not aware of what they are doing
- adamredwoods 5y ago
  I've interviewed with them 2 times, and had poor experiences each time. I'm sure I had my own imperfections surface during the interviews, but I've experienced hundreds of interviews at other companies, and I can safely say these were poor. Maybe I was mostly unlucky, but it left a poor experience on me, and I have no desire to work at Amazon. On the other hand, I had really good experiences at Microsoft. shrugs
cwkoss 5y ago
Should savvy readers interpret all of their principles as Orwellian doublespeak? Seems like selecting leaders who are gullible enough to believe these are all already true about Amazon would be a useful technique for screening out critical thinkers who would argue against immoral business decisions.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  You don't bother to list new principles if you're already living up to them. Charitably, they are an attempt to refocus the company so these are lived up to in the future. Cynically, they are an attempt to use words to avoid needing to change anything in how Amazon operates. With a new CEO, the more charitable version seems not impossible.
  - mosdave 5y ago
    > You don't bother to list new principles if you're already living up to them. ah, ok, now Don't Be Evil makes more sense
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Don't Be Evil was always on the cynical, "words over actions" side.
      - romwell 5y ago
        It wasn't always that way. It's had a pretty good run. Fun fact: they scrapped that motto without fanfare just around the time the company went full speed towards where it's going now. Google hasn't listed Don't Be Evil as a principle in many years now.
    - romwell 5y ago
      Don't Be Evil wasn't a new principle. It was a foundational one, on which the company grew. That's why it was scrapped, and the following new principles were listed: * Respect the opportunity (wtf?) * Respect the user (lol) * Respect each other (ahahaha) Hope it makes sense now :)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
onion2k 5y ago
I wonder if "best employer" is even possible for a company at the scale of Amazon. The wants and needs of different members of staff will conflict with one another at scale. What's a great employer for one person is an overly bureaucratic micromanagement nightmare for another. Unless the company is capable of managing every person who works there on an entirely individual basis the goal of "best employer" is ultimately a futile one. "Not the worst employer" is much more realistic.

From what I've heard from their former employees (engineer / corporate, not warehouse), the best employer bit is laughable

by ikiris 5y ago

From what I've heard from their former employees (engineer / corporate, not warehouse), the best employer bit is laughable

metalliqaz 5y ago

I can recall horror stories from their engineers when I was in grad school (around 2004 or so). So I think it is well entrenched.

ethbr0 5y ago

To give intent the broadest benefit of the doubt, maybe that's why they wanted to encode the goal in a principle. Changing Amazon's corporate culture at this point has to be like relocating the Alps.

spoonjim 5y ago
Ballmer -> Nadella shows that it is possible.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Curious on folks who have been at both places. My impression is that Microsoft runs a more centralized culture than Amazon?
  - Exmoor 5y ago
    Well, the biggest difference is probably scale. Amazon has roughly 10x the number of direct employees as Microsoft spread throughout a much wider range of job types. Some of this is inherent due to what Amazon's business is, but a big chunk of it is that Microsoft outsources essentially every job that's not at the absolute core of their business. Anything outside of that is outsourced to vendors. Microsoft's management of these vendors is basically "make us happy as cheaply as possible or you're fired" and the results for the employees of those companies is about what you'd expect.
slumdev 5y ago
The culture will slowly rot as the company gets larger and as the real visionaries (good or bad) become increasingly disconnected from the boots on the ground. We're already seeing things like people getting hired and then PIPed within months so that their managers can avoid firing the reports they like...
haswell 5y ago
Yeah, in 2021, employees increasingly expect this from their employers. Of course this could just be for optics and to claim "see, we care", but I think interpretation misses the broader context. In light of "The Great Resignation", and increasing awareness and activism around work/life balance, socially conscious employers, etc. this kind of move is required. At worst, it's a survival mechanism. A more charitable take is that leadership actually wants to change things. In either case, if they actually implement this, it's good for employees even if leadership was forced to do this by the current climate.

cwilkes 5y ago

Well it does say “strive”. Like I’m striving to get on the olympics pole vaulting team by watching it on TV.

scrooched_moose 5y ago
It really reminds me of this exchange from Better Off Ted: Veronica: There is no program to green the building. Ted: Yeah there is. They made a commercial about it. Veronica: I didn't say there wasn't a commercial about greening the building. I said there is no program to green the building. Ted: So it's all a lie? Veronica: They prefer to look at it as a dream. Ted: But one they're not working towards? Veronica: Are you working toward all your dreams, Ted? Then stop pointing fingers.

kube-system 5y ago

Maybe that's why they added it?

koboll 5y ago

Probably why it's a leadership principle now. When I started there, the first thing I noticed, reading the LPs, was a conspicuous lack of anything employee-centric, which most other big companies have somewhere in their mission statement.

gameman144 5y ago

In all fairness, maybe that's why they're adding this: the workplace culture and irresponsibility of Amazon are the main things I hear criticized a lot, so this could be them trying to actually address that. I know Amazon, more than most companies, actually rates engineers along these axes. Then again, this could just be PR mumbo jumbo.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Then again, this could just be PR mumbo jumbo. It's just PR mumbo jumbo until they consistently display these principles (and let their stock price take a hit because of them, if that's what it takes). Even if "leadership principles" are currently super important in Amazon's culture, there's going to be massive inertia around behaviors and attitudes that satisfied the older set but violate the new ones. For instance, are they going to immediately scrap their automated system that evaluates and terminates workers without human intervention (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-28/fired-by-bot-amazon-turns-to-machine-managers-and-workers-are-losing-out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-28/fired-by-...), because it clearly violates these new principles?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gameman144 5y ago
  I dunno. Everything takes time, and I think it's more fair to evaluate them on incremental progress. If I said "I want to be more Earth-friendly" and decide to add reusable grocery bags to my regimen, I'd hope that people wouldn't lambaste me for not yet going vegan, selling my car, and doing away with my AC unit. If there were no additional changes beyond my shopping bags, then sure, say that I was spouting nonsense. There's a lot to be said for consistent incremental progress toward a goal, though. (The automated system is a great example, though, of a system ostensibly working against that goal. Much like me wanting to be Earth-friendly, then buying a new Hummer)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

eCa 5y ago

First thought here as well. On the other hand, that’s a new principle and would require massive changes[1] in the near future if the leaders at the top really mean it. [1] I say that as someone who has no first hand knowledge of the inner workings of Amazon.

steelframe 5y ago

I've got a personal email from a manager at AWS still sitting in my inbox, and I don't want to reply to it because I have heard so many horror stories from former Amazon employees. When your reputation in the industry is so bad that potential hires don't even want to start a conversation with you, then you definitely have a problem as an employer. With this new principle, perhaps Amazon is recognizing this as a real problem with respect to recruitment and retention of people with experience.

jedmeyers 5y ago
“perhaps Amazon is recognizing this as a real problem” The real choices here seems to be: - amazon is “stupid” and does not recognize it as a problem - amazon is well aware, but does not care, since it benefits them in some way
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  It could simply be that it is not a problem yet, but is becoming one. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-worker-shortage-2021-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-wo...
  - scotuswroteus 5y ago
    You should have linked to the bill that just came out of the Judiciary Committee
- rualca 5y ago
  > amazon is well aware, but does not care, since it benefits them in some way Given Amazon's egregious attrition rate and their yearly decimation policy, it's not very likely that they are not aware of what they are doing
adamredwoods 5y ago
I've interviewed with them 2 times, and had poor experiences each time. I'm sure I had my own imperfections surface during the interviews, but I've experienced hundreds of interviews at other companies, and I can safely say these were poor. Maybe I was mostly unlucky, but it left a poor experience on me, and I have no desire to work at Amazon. On the other hand, I had really good experiences at Microsoft. shrugs

cwkoss 5y ago

Should savvy readers interpret all of their principles as Orwellian doublespeak? Seems like selecting leaders who are gullible enough to believe these are all already true about Amazon would be a useful technique for screening out critical thinkers who would argue against immoral business decisions.

HWR_14 5y ago
You don't bother to list new principles if you're already living up to them. Charitably, they are an attempt to refocus the company so these are lived up to in the future. Cynically, they are an attempt to use words to avoid needing to change anything in how Amazon operates. With a new CEO, the more charitable version seems not impossible.
- mosdave 5y ago
  > You don't bother to list new principles if you're already living up to them. ah, ok, now Don't Be Evil makes more sense
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Don't Be Evil was always on the cynical, "words over actions" side.
    - romwell 5y ago
      It wasn't always that way. It's had a pretty good run. Fun fact: they scrapped that motto without fanfare just around the time the company went full speed towards where it's going now. Google hasn't listed Don't Be Evil as a principle in many years now.
  - romwell 5y ago
    Don't Be Evil wasn't a new principle. It was a foundational one, on which the company grew. That's why it was scrapped, and the following new principles were listed: * Respect the opportunity (wtf?) * Respect the user (lol) * Respect each other (ahahaha) Hope it makes sense now :)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

onion2k 5y ago

I wonder if "best employer" is even possible for a company at the scale of Amazon. The wants and needs of different members of staff will conflict with one another at scale. What's a great employer for one person is an overly bureaucratic micromanagement nightmare for another. Unless the company is capable of managing every person who works there on an entirely individual basis the goal of "best employer" is ultimately a futile one. "Not the worst employer" is much more realistic.