7 ms·
As someone who has seen stack ranking in action at Amazon and Microsoft both, this is an excellent interview question at any company you consider, especially on
by nirvana 14y ago
As someone who has seen stack ranking in action at Amazon and Microsoft both, this is an excellent interview question at any company you consider, especially one founded by ex-Amazon or ex-Microsoft employees. Do you use stack ranking? If the answer is yes then you know they aren't performance based.
Microsoft and Amazon both seem to think it is "scientific". It isn't really scientific when, in advance, you decide that %10 should be on a firing track, %70 should be warned and %20 should be promoted-- without regard to actual performance.
Bezos likes to run around claiming he only hires "A players", but what it ended up being was C & D[1] players who didn't know how to program or understand technology, ranking their teams, almost completely based on office politics[2] and ones ability to hype their work, rather than the actual technical quality of the work. Of course generalizations like this will have exceptions and I knew some groups who were lead by software developers who got promoted, and the AWS group seemed to be insulated from the amazon culture. But HR and Management at Amazon.com were absolutely atrocious. And that's in comparison to Microsoft (where I also worked) where this "metrics" religion was completely accepted as well.
If you're a talented engineer, work for a startup, but if you need a big company and you're in the northwest, pick Microsoft before you pick Amazon. (Maybe google is better than both, but I've not worked there.)
Edit to add:
In fairness I can compare myself to gates. I saw the Kindle at Amazon about a year(?) before it was announced and wanted to kill it on the spot. (not that I had any say in the matter) I thought it looked like it was designed in the USSR. Still do, but bad design can still make for a good product financially (and it has gotten better.)
[1] I'm being generous here. My boss and my bosses's boss and all the HR people I'd give an F. Absolutely the most incompetent people I've worked with in 20 years of mostly working with startups where even really competent people have to struggle with immense difficulties and uncertainty, neither of which was present at Amazon, except to the extent created by incompetence, though this incompetence went all the way to the top. I saw other people leading other teams who were C & D players, so I presume my team was just particularly bad.
[2] (Talking about amazon here, saw much less of this at MSFT. MSFT was more misguided than... evil.) In order of decreasing effectiveness: Kissing Bezos's ass, Kissing your manager's bosses ass, kissing your manager's ass, kissing your manager's peers ass, making up initiatives that sounded really effective, even if they had no actual effect and then propagandizing them around the company, sabotaging your co-workers products, knifing your co-workers in the back verbally, deliberately mistranslating instructions from your boss to others in the team, hyping yourself with other teams, conspiring with others at other teams, and just generally lying. I saw all of this occur. If I'm bitter it is because I was not smart enough to accept that this was the companies culture, and I gave them way too much benefit of the doubt. I should have left immediately after they broke a hiring promise to me (in the first month.)
- spaghetti 14y agoOuch! Your list in [2] is sad but true from my experiences at big co. Any thoughts on how to prevent company culture from degrading to this extent?
- nirvana 14y agoOh, do I have thoughts, let me tell you! Seriously, though, I am a firm believer[1] that company culture comes from the top. This seems consistent with the personalities for both Gates and Bezos in that they are competitive people. They know it is difficult to compare people across disciplines, so they punt on the problem and just make it a contest. I think they probably figure that if everyone is fighting to get the best kudos because there is a financial incentive, that some productivity that actually goes to the bottom line will result as well... and that the highly political and conflict oriented culture that results is less a detriment than having unmotivated people. Plus I think they believe that a highly political and conflict oriented culture is the best for finding the right, best answers because "obviously" the best choices will be taken, rather than the compromise that reaches the most popularity- or that compromise is possibly the definition of "best" in their view. The thing is, they may well be right. I believe that Apple (whom I've never worked for) does things differently. For instance, individual departments don't have profit and loss statements, the whole company does. The product focus "religion" seems to have started with Wozniak and Jobs - both of whom helped form the company culture- and was hugely re-enforced by the traumatic experience of the 1990s and the lesson taught by their comeback. (But for all I know at the individual level they may also be stack ranking.) At Apple there's a third party to the table- designers- and they seem to be the ones with the upper hand in calling shots. Since everyone recognizes and respects the need for design at apple-- this being part of their culture- this may ultimately make Apple employees more focused on the product. But I'm going here on what I've read about the company, I don't have inside info. Microsoft wants to protect their windows and office business, above all else. All competition is seen in light of "is this threatening windows?" But at the same time you have that drive "to increase visibility outside your team." Amazon wants to just throw things at the wall and see what sticks. One of the ways to get visibility in Amazon (and thus a high stack rank) is to come up with something to throw at the wall... during it's flight and while it is still in contact with the wall, you do well and get promoted, and by the time it starts to slide down the wall and crash and burn (e.g.: A9, amazon catalogs, amazon menus, etc.) you've parachuted out to a nice well funded startup where you are a "big name". (EG OCP Corp from Robocop but with parachutes.) If you get lucky it actually sticks (e.g.: AWS) and then you have a license to throw things at the wall at will. Apple on the other hand focuses on only a few things, and focuses on the customer experience and focuses on being super capital efficient, to the detriment of employees in the sense that they seem to have very high burnout (a lot is accomplished by a few, but the stress is immense.) But I think the inclusion or deference to design is the key advantage for them. It would be interesting to know the dirt on what it is like to work for Google, as they seem to have at least tried to take a completely different approach, but everyone I know who has worked there hasn't remained there more than a couple years. So, I don't know what's going on there. [1] though I can't empirically prove