11 ms·
Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly
- jdmg94 2y agoGood riddance, there's too many layers of management for a company that touts "It's always day 1", and once you become a manager you can only fail upwards.
- justmarc 2y agoSo they finally figured out most managers are not just useless, but literally a drag to the company and progress?
- DesiLurker 2y agoNo now just senior managers are supposed to pickup the slack and drag the company behind on there own. and also program managers & useless product managers. jokes apart, long ago when I was there, once somebody did the internal org site scraping and found out in our org there were almost 6 workers (status givers) to 1 status takers. and sr. engineers are supposed to 'manage themselves', so really full of political BSers.
- coliveira 2y agoDon't forget principals. Most of them do nothing the whole day and are compensated to create BS projects that go nowhere.
- viccis 2y agoIn my experience, the worst of them are lodged in there tighter than trichinella larvae.
- wkat4242 2y agoYeah because the good ones already left the shitshow to get a job somewhere better. Because they can.
- anacrolix 2y agoThe best are always the first to leave
- FirmwareBurner 2y agoTheir upper managers don't want "best", they want loyal, they want yes men that will make perfect henchmen, that's what best is for them so they get exactly what they're looking for. People who rock the boat aren't gonna cut it.
- viccis 2y agoThis is true. I've also found that there are perverse incentives when it comes to (especially upper) management. Building up enough political clout in your organization that aren't answerable to many people, and managing your image among the few you are answerable to, is the best skill one can have if the outcome is steady long term employment. Providing value to your company and coworkers doesn't correlate as much with surviving corporate haircuts like these.
- ldjkfkdsjnv 2y agoYou realize alot of these managers are making seven figures? The "good ones" arent leaving. They are clinging to that money
- hibikir 2y agoA manager decides to spend their energy managing their relationships up, down or sideways. The very worst will focus solely on managing the upwards relationship, but that's precisely what makes them hard to dislodge: Every second of their day is spent on efforts that helped their job security by relationship building. So it's not just that the best manager is also the best at finding a new job, but that every second they spend improving their org's performance is a second they don't spend trying to fool a typically not-so-good middle manager into thinking they are indispensable. This is also why, every time I've seen manager culls, I have found that it was rare for upper management's idea of who was easier to replace was to match that of peers and reports. The ability of the bad manager to hide the truth from the exec is much stronger than people realize.
- googlehater 2y agowhat was the purpose of that analogy?
- wubrr 2y agoThe managers are just following the (fairly absurd imo), amazon internal processes for the most part. If the processes don't change, there are just going to be a bunch of overloaded managers. The current processes, culture, and 'principles'/dogmas are inefficient, contradictory and toxic af.
- hsbauauvhabzb 2y agoWho created the policies and procedures?
- dboreham 2y agoBezos.
- eMPee584 2y ago(Bezos all the way down)
- lolinder 2y agoIf the answer you were looking for was "managers", then you have no concept of just how big Amazon is. According to TFA they have about 106000 managers before this layoff. You don't give 106k people any meaningful control over the company's policies and procedures, that has to come from the layers above the managers, probably several layers up.
- hsbauauvhabzb 2y agoSo, the people that manage the managers?
- lolinder 2y agoTry the people that manage the people that manage the people that manage the managers. Maybe. Definitely not the people being laid off.
- joshstrange 2y agoI'm interested to hear what type of structure you prefer over one that has managers overseeing developers. Or are you saying you just need to find the good managers? I might have misunderstood. I'm honestly interested in alternatives.
- dyauspitr 2y agoWell come back around. We will retry the flat structure again, realize that just leads to terrible throughput, team wise political battles and defacto leaders and start hiring the managers again. Just look at older industries that have reached a steady state because they’ve been around longer. No one is constructing a large building without a project manager, foremen or architects.
- boredatoms 2y agoThey’ll just hire more managers again in 18months
- nomel 2y agoEven if they do, they've culled those that they deemed weren't a good fit, possibly changing the hiring criteria. If the criteria for both is rational, purging can be very good for an org, and the employees. Crap managers make jobs suck for everyone involved. edit: I'll say, I've only ever left a job because of a manager. Shortly before leaving my current job, due to a crap manager, the previous manager was fired. The entire org benefited.
- jmull 2y agoThese guys either hired 14K bad/useless managers, or fired 14K decent, useful managers, or some combination of both. I wouldn't bet they will suddenly become good at hiring managers.
- nomel 2y agoI don't think it's useful to look at absolutes like this. The question is, how many managers did they hire since the last round of layoffs, and what percent are being layed off now? Or, in other words, what's the bad hire rate? How does that unavoidable number compare to the industry? 14k people is 0.9% of their employees. Let's say they have a 16% manager ratio. That's maybe 5% of their management. What's the management/non-management ratio? Is it meant to balance for the reductions in headcount?
- snoman 2y ago> they've culled those that they deemed weren't a good fit… I think it’s worthwhile challenging this assumption. In a layoff, with that many people, I don’t think you can say much beyond that the company doesn’t want to pay them anymore.
- nomel 2y ago
- iLoveOncall 2y agoThis is old news and refers to the 15% figure that was announced last year (more than 6 months ago!) and for which the "layoffs" are already completed. Overall, nothing at all happened, managers looked after their own kind and the worst that happened for some was having to go back to IC positions. The article is most likely AI generated since it says this was announced "last month" and the article is from March, but the real announcement was September 2024: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/ceo-andy-jassy-latest-update-on-amazon-return-to-office-manager-team-ratio https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/ceo-andy-jassy...
- Ancalagon 2y agoHow do the cost savings work then?
- iLoveOncall 2y agoThat's a made up figure from the journalist. They estimated that managers each earn between 200-350K and came to that number.
- coliveira 2y agoThey probably just "promoted" people under them and then immediately fired these people for "poor performance". It is an old scheme they have.
- iLoveOncall 2y agoNo, they did not. Managerial positions are not a promotion in Amazon, they're just a lateral move, and the process takes around 6 months... They did exactly what I said they did, moving some managers to IC in the very worst case but mostly shuffling teams around.
- coliveira 2y agoYou probably don't understand what these people are capable of. You're right that the normal process can take several months, but I wouldn't discard them rushing a number of people to management just to lay them off as soon as possible.
- jedberg 2y agohttps://archive.ph/RBxg1 https://archive.ph/RBxg1
- bagels 2y agoWho lays off the engineers now?
- jrsdav 2y agoThe teary-eyed CEO, of course.
- ginko 2y agoAI :)
- nextworddev 2y agoYou are being downvoted but we know it’s coming
- johnnyanmac 2y agoThe most generic dystopia novel premise imaginable. but it seems like America is gonna treat it like gospel instead. Anything to not pay the working class.
- sampton 2y agoMost managers are human ticket classifiers.
- johnny99 2y agoI would have also thought this an insult, until joining a company where nobody was classifying the tickets.
- joshstrange 2y ago> human ticket classifiers Are there alternatives? I ask this as someone who spends a lot of time doing just this. Your addition of the word "human" gave me hope there is a better/alternative system?
- arccy 2y agoour lord and saviour, chatgpt obviously
- analog31 2y agoThere's a lot of truth in this. We haven't figured out how to automate complex systems. Instead, systems operate under partial automation, and exceptions are handled by humans. This is also true of any bureaucracy. Because automation is invisible and humans are visible, it will always appear that bureaucrats are spending most of their time taking care of the failures of unnecessarily complex systems. The engineers working on complex technology systems are doing a lot of the same kind of things. Technology is disturbingly similar to bureaucracy. Consider the many HN threads to the effect of "<Service> just deleted my account for no reason and there's no escalation process or human to contact." Now imagine of Social Security ran that way. Health care does, to some extent.
- nickysielicki 2y agothey’ll fuck that up, too
- elif 2y agoI imagine one thread of the logic is like dang, AI is only producing mediocre work this year. What can we replace where mediocrity is acceptable... How about a role whose primary function is interhuman language.. where we can fallback on the humans involved (engineers, c levels) naturally catching and correcting mistakes?
- lysace 2y agoAmazon (the online retailer nowadays mostly hawking Chinese alphabet-salad-named brands) and/or AWS the cloud service behemoth? I continue to find it so bizarre that they are the same company.
- bsimpson 2y agoThe yellow|white|red jacks on the back of your TV are "RCA jacks." RCA stands for Radio Corporation of America. The same RCA launched NBC, which launched CNBC, which is a dominant source of financial news in the US. You plugged your Nintendo into a TV using jacks designed by the same company that told your parents which stocks to buy and sell. Gets even weirder when you get into acquisitions, where Ben and Jerry's ice cream is owned by the same Unilever that is famous for its soap.
- lysace 2y agoWe mostly didn't have RCA jacks in Europe when I grew up. But nevermind; this is not the same. Amazon largely consists of two internally grown businesses: Retail and AWS. They are wildly different.
- timc3 2y agoThen you must have grow up at a particular time which didnt have them. There was a time period where it would be unusual to have a TV or VCR without them.
- lysace 2y agoWe had the much more fabulous SCART. But I fear we may be drifting off-topic.
- rsynnott 2y agoEuropean TVs generally used SCART cables (a sort of 1970s analog HDMI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCART https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCART), from the 1980s until HDMI took over. It was, indeed, fairly common for a TV or VCR or games console to have _only_ SCART. Odd standard; it had both composite and RGB lines, but also control lines, so, like HDMI-CEC, you could set it up so that your VCR couldn’t quite control your TV. It also supported daisy-chaining, a bit like SCSI, so you could connect your TV to your VCR and your VCR to your DVD player. Even before SCART, European TV equipment tended to use DIN (you may remember this as the IBM AT keyboard connector) rather than RCA. Oddly, there was a brief period where it was somewhat common for early HD TVs to have component RCA connectors; while SCART did support HD component, people apparently did not trust it.
- zombiwoof 2y agoHow many H1b or are they getting rid of just Americans?
- androiddrew 2y ago#shareholder-value
- Aurornis 2y agoThis is weird blogspam based on a Business Insider article from October of last year, which was based on a quote from Amazon's CEO in September of last year: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-could-cut-managers-save-3-billion-analysts-2024-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-could-cut-managers-sa... TL;DR: > CEO Andy Jassy said last month that he wanted to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of the first quarter of 2025. It appears the rest is speculation and hypothesizing from analysts, which is why they're quoting Morgan Stanley as a source.
- asdfman123 2y agoPadme meme: by hiring more ICs, right?
- bb88 2y agoI'm going to make the observation that politics in a company is caused by management. The more "politics" you have at a company, the more you pay in a "political tax". Effort which should benefit the company is delayed or made harder as employees have to bob and weave to get through the politics. I do believe if you want real culture change in a company, the best way to do it is to show managers the door, because that's how you got there in the first place. Edited to add: I'm not saying get rid of management. I'm saying get rid of bad management. And if your bad management is a malignant tumor, well, it's too late to fix it manager by manager -- because they've internalized how to game the system for themselves.
- analog31 2y agoDeming agreed with you: Quality control is a management problem. But there's management and there's management. If we're talking about 14000 people, they're not the top managers of the business, and getting rid of them won't change the culture. They're workers, and Deming also said: Don't blame the workers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Marazan 2y agoMiddle management _is_ the culture of a company. A regular worker interacts not at all with the CxOs except reading their emails and every day with their managers. Middle management is also the memory of the company.
- asdfman123 2y agoNah, they're both downstream of complexity. Complexity creates both managers and politics. But managers do create more complexity and more politics. The problem in companies like this is there are often few incentives for reducing complexity, even in a company like Amazon that claims to value eliminating it.
- cscheid 2y ago(Context: I’m an IC and told my Manager multiple times that I’d quit if they ever make me a manager) If you truly believe that, please do yourself a favor and read “The tyranny of structurelessness” to understand what a managerless place becomes. everyone and no one becomes a manager, and there’s no explicit avenue of recourse. There’s a good reason management arises. We can discuss good management vs bad management, but pretty fundamentally there’s no such thing as “no management”.
- uoaei 2y agoI've heard that the managers there aren't nearly as big a problem as the incentive structures that are imposed on managers. The competitiveness within the ranks compromises the office culture. This was explained to me as the origin of the plague of PIPs.
- wkat4242 2y agoHaha a friend was just recommending I apply for a job there. I told her hell no. It's one of the worst in big tech. Probably second worst after twitter. The next one she came up with was Microsoft lol. I work with them a lot and I hate it. I work for an enterprise now but a pretty decent European one. I don't think I could work for a US big tech company.
- nomel 2y agoExpanding on this, even a little, would make your comment much more interesting.
- piecerough 2y agoWhat's a decent european enterprise?
- Kurd 2y agoI have had a long career working for F50 companies across a few decades. I can tell you, my time as a senior manager at Microsoft in mid 00’s has been the most pleasant experience I have had working in the private sector. A lot has changed in the past 20 years, but I am in touch with many colleagues still working there, and we still recommend Microsoft over the rest.
- xmprt 2y agoWorking with Microsoft's customer facing tools and people is very different from working inside Microsoft. Not that you'll like one if you hate the other but just that they're different enough that you can't judge one by your experience with the other.
- johnwheeler 2y agoWith the rise of AI, my disdain for managers has gone up. I don't think it's because AI has made managers redundant. It's because AI is making me redundant and I'm realizing they've kind of _always_ been redundant.
- VincentEvans 2y agoI am curious how do you just hire 14,000 managers at the cost of $3.5B yearly more than you needed? Maybe they should fire the guy responsible for THAT.
- maigret 2y agoAlso some finance guy gets rewarded for making that much cost savings, and they have meat to give to the shareholders, it’s an endless cycle. The finance folks only get the gain, the revenue/quality loss of their actions will not be measured accurately and will not be traced back to their actions. Only upsides.
- wnevets 2y agoThe people at that level of management are god like geniuses who must never be questioned.
- dlgeek 2y agoRealize they have over 1.5MM employees and who knows how many contractors.
- funnyAI 2y agoJust a few weeks ago I was contacted by Amazon recruiter and refused for exactly this reason. I expect more layoffs as they figure out they don't need this many engineers after all. They will turn into money pumping google search analog.
- baconbrand 2y agoFrom a surface level it seems like they've operated like this since... forever. AWS is still a very nice product, at least for the use cases I have for it. I have a hard time reconciling those two things.
- anon776 2y agoIf you do the maths, the average manager receives 250k a year in benefits.
- dakial1 2y agoI tend to agree with Amazon leadership here, as they increase the management layer on a company, the team accountability and ownership gets lost. A more horizontal company is able to do more (per capita) and faster. The tricky part is what to do when you scale, as you can't simply leave teams to their own devices as they will run their separate ways, so you do more and faster but in the wrong direction. But then again, when you add management layer you start a chain reaction that creates this complex cake that might stop everything from happening. It is a complex balance.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jimt1234 2y ago> Amazon has launched a “bureaucracy tipline” ... Sounds like Jassy has gone full Elon. I'm guessing a chainsaw for the next earnings report.
- ikhare 2y agoA long time ago Google used to have a program called "bureaucracy busters," where submissions were reviewed by the CFO to find internal barriers to getting things done.
- UncleMeat 2y agoIt was a good system. It no longer really exists and has been replaced by endless reprioritization and detailed bean counting justifying every single small action to prove to layers of management that what you are doing is worthwhile as Google slowly rots into a decayed husk of its old self.
- chris_va 2y agoSlowly? :)
- speed_spread 2y agoThat's also my understanding. One big boss and a bunch of compliant minions. As if Amazon wasn't already dog-eat-dog enough. This won't end there.
- throwanem 2y agoImagine mistaking this for "getting rid of management," rather than kicking off a battle royale to backfill those roles with only the most efficiently, consciencelessly bloodthirsty aspirants to the power vacuum so created.
- hintymad 2y agoThis is also more than just saving a few billions of dollars but making a giant like Amazon more efficient, especially when it comes to making decisions. It's just too soul crushing to have a dozen of people who spend all day gatekeeping each project instead of building anything.
- alberth 2y agoFor context: Total # Employee: 1,556,000 Planned # Layoff: 14,000 (or 0.9%) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company)
- danpalmer 2y agoThis isn't the whole story though. While Amazon might have 1.5m employees, many of those are going to be in the fulfilment and distribution process, which is a very different place to being in engineering/product/finance/business/marketing working in an office. I think it would be more useful to split the company down that line, in which case Amazon probably have ~300k(?) on the office side, and this represents more like a 4-5% layoff, a level at which people will really notice it.
- abnercoimbre 2y agoNow this is proper context, thank you.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- alberth 2y ago> “fulfillment … which is a very different place to being in … working in an office.” Where does it say anything about this being only “office” jobs, as you put it.
- nzealand 2y ago> This reduction marks a 13% drop in Amazon’s global management workforce, shrinking the number of managers from 105,770 to 91,936. (second sentence in btw)
- basisword 2y agoI don't understand the shit 'managers' get on here. I've been in this industry for 15+ years and with one or two rare exceptions every manager has been great. They respect my time, when I need something they're incredibly helpful, and they care about my career development. IMO the culling over managers over the past few years is really a way to make sure you don't have someone you can discuss career development, promotion, and pay increases with. I have very honest conversations with my managers about these things regularly. If I had to deal with someone a few layers above I doubt I'd have the same success. Another 'benefit' for the company in culling managers is that the manager track generally has higher pay at each level. Understandable given it seems to involve more time commitment and dealing with people can be much more tricky than dealing with code. Less options for IC's to transition == lower salary burden. Reduce the number of people on the manager track and you reduce the amount of salary an employee can hope to attain. I've definitely been put off switching from IC to manager because I feel the jobs are less secure over the last few years.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- steveBK123 2y agoGenuinely unique experience for you probably. I think career wise in 20 years I'd break down my experience as - 25% benign, 25% malign, 50% good. This is across 6+ companies, 15-20 managers.
- ketzo 2y agoThe way people on HN sometimes talk about "management," you'd think the universal experience is 1% good, 9% benign, 90% actively seeking the downfall of civilization Managers seem like a good example of the "toupee problem" -- the ones you notice, and really remember, are the bad ones; the best, you might never see at all.
- bb88 2y agoI like the old wisdom about apples personally: "One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch".
- steveBK123 2y agoInteresting that the math tells us AMZN average manager compensation is $250k? Seems.. low?
- ryandrake 2y ago$250K is low: Kind of a "Peak HN" comment :). I was actually going to say it seems kind of high. This looks like it's globally, not just in high COL areas, and across all levels of management, not just Directors and VPs. Kind of surprising the average is that high. Then again, this is HN, where they say the "average" tech worker in the world makes $400K and drives a Ferrari.
- throwme0827349 2y agoI actually thought the same thing. Maybe the misunderstanding here has to do with what kind of manager. An engineering manager making 250k would be making less than many senior software engineers, but if this also includes many managers of people putting shit in boxes, or the average of the two categories, it would make more sense?
- ldjkfkdsjnv 2y agobottom barrel tech manager at amazon makes 400k
- kadushka 2y agoI make more than 250k as an engineer in a small startup. The only reason to join a FAANG is to make much more than 250k. According to levels.fyi an average senior SDE at amazon makes $412k total comp.
- TrackerFF 2y agoMaybe it is only the base pay? I.e excluding stocks
- CaffeineLD50 2y agoAwesome. About time these layoffs start making sense. If anyone can be replaced by AI it's the PHBs
- davidrupp 2y agoSDE, just passed ten years at Amazon; opinions my own, obvs. The three best managers I've worked with in my career have all been at Amazon (you know who you are). Also the three worst (ditto). And the respective bars were pretty [high | low] coming in. Just like everywhere else I've been, it comes down to the individual. Amazon, as far as I can tell, have never tried to homogenize management. Your team delivers? You're in.
- ldjkfkdsjnv 2y agoPeople wildly underestimate how good some of the people at Amazon are. Tenured Amazon employees that have moved up the ranks over 10+ years are astounding in their ability to execute on projects.
- subpixel 2y agoWhere I happen to work management is like the clergy in a regime that grants them much power, but no control. They may care about each member of their 'congregation' and provide 'support' where they can, but ultimately they know their own head depends on staying true to doctrine and interpreting edicts.
- karmakaze 2y agoMy experience is that most managers are between good and okay, some are great, countably few are obstacles. What's different are many layers of middle managers which I don't deal with directly. A fair number, though not much fault of their own create broken telephone communication pathways. Some are actively out for themselves and growing their little empires, alignment be damned. It's good to maintain good technical communication signals with fewer mis-translation points, so flatter orgs are more agile.
- elicksaur 2y agoTopic seems like a bait for your typical HN user. If you dislike managers generally, why would you think Amazon is firing them for all the reasons you personally dislike them as a class? What is Amazon’s actual motive here?
- johnnyanmac 2y agoIt's a pretty weak smokescreen. People thinking this is about "efficiency" should go work for DOGE. This has been happening for years now so the facade is long gone. The reasons are as usual. Anticipating economic headwinds and how to make number go up despite that,s174 (sp?) changing how you amortize R&D, early attempts to incorporate AI into workflows, etc. Companies at the moment are not at all concerned with lean development nor streamlining workflows.
- karaterobot 2y agoNote that 14,000 managers amounts to 13% of all managers at Amazon. So, this isn't them flattening the hierarchy and making teams autonomous, self-organizing squads. Or, at least, this article doesn't make that claim. > Amazon is set to cut around 14,000 managerial positions by early 2025, aiming to save between $2.1 billion and $3.6 billion annually. If the number is $2.1 to $3.6, I wonder why the headline went with $3.5. Weird.
- tamaharbor 2y agoI was a really poor manager. I hated every minute of it.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoWhat did you learn out of the experience?
- johnohara 2y agoSaving $2.1B to $3.6B means the 13,834 management positions pay between $150,000 to $260,000 per year. Plus benefits and other incentives I suppose. These are not the workers who travel from warehouse to warehouse living in their RV's. It makes me wonder if Amazon's AI implementations are starting to move up the food chain as was generally predicted for the U.S. economy 5 years ago.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- therealpygon 2y agoJust wait until people realize that the easiest jobs to automate aren’t usually the ones that pay $9/hr. Automated performance metrics, direct monitoring of employee active screen time, so on and so forth. All the while managers were thinking how much easier it was going to make their job. We’re at the point that an AI can now perform the requisite performance metric failing, sternly worded cautionary performance review, translate the verbal conversation for HR records as documentation for a subsequent firing if needed, and simply not care that your kid died and it has been a rough month. Left to their own devices, the corporate dystopia is pretty bleak.
- SebFender 2y agoFor what it's worth - I've been in tech for close to 30 years and honestly met 2 or 3 managers that really did their job well and truly helped. The rest got jobs from mergers, takeovers, friendships, time or lack of strategy/interest from others. And what happened to the good ones you may ask? They all left the places where I was to grow somewhere else. Management mostly creates politics (ghost & real ones) - I would love for management to truly help teams employees and projects - but they rarely do. To be a good manager you need to manage up and down - but most only manage up...
- johnnyanmac 2y agoIf you want to fix the problem, look at the incentives. Management hasn't had an incentive to manage down in decades, because the executives no longer care about tenure nor productivity in the traditional sense (because their incentives are also messed up, but that's for another post). You need a good culture with proper incentives to be rewarded as a good manager. But that's not really the world most live in these days. Instead, the good get exploited by the bad and either leave to protect themselves or cause discourse as they try to do their job and inevitably be overthrown by those above.
- mancerayder 2y agoI'm an engineering manager (EDIT - not at Amazon or at a very large firm), and I do 10,000 bazillion things a day, usually involving fixing lousy project management, setting processes so random people on the team don't get slammed by random external demands, guiding people's careers, talking people off the ledge / therapy, matching people's skills and interests to the projects and work, creating other teams to run ops so engineers can engineer, talk to senior management in a way they need to hear to protect the people below from nonsense, proving to the people above that I need headcount (and then creating a hiring process), helping people below being new managers, helping junior people learn, and interacting with clients and business people so the engineers are protected from it. Whenever I try to funnel some of these tasks to the senior engineers, almost all push back because it's not engineering. But after reading this thread, I'm actually completely useless, and engineers should do better without me. To that I laugh, and cry in frustration at the same time. Go at it. As an engineer your new boss is a project manager from another org, senior group leaders from other groups, and generally the loudest yeller who's waiting on you. Have fun managing that.
- kirso 2y agoDon't take it too harshly, most of HN would build facebook in a weekend and exit for billions. And usually they only see their circle of influence without actually trying to be a manager in a first place to understand what does it take. Their manager is now a business stakeholder, that is even worse...
- apple4ever 2y agoYou really nailed it. Most don't realize all the work that goes into being a manager. Yes some are bad at it. It's why I got into management, so I could replace those bad managers. And so far, for the most part, my employees love me.
- srnayak 2y agoIn India, the Amazon managers are notorious for all bad practices e.g. forced PIP quota, hire to fire, demanding to work during off hours and on holidays. Now the concern is that these managers will go, join many companies and spread the same bad management practices across the industry.
- BrandoElFollito 2y agoI am a bad manager, which I warn new recruits about. I need my team to be independent, make decisions and challenge my (brilliant) ideas. They simply need to be good with what they know, at their level. I will actively evangelize my strategy (they can challenge it, ultimately I am the accountable), I will always have their back (because I am like this, there is no profound philosophy behind this) and when they did something successful, they did it and present in front of the board. When they fucked up, I fucked up. This is not some kind of messianic approach - just generic mortality. I spend a lot of time with them and O like to have them as "work friends". I would hate to be hit by suvh layoff, and I am rather happy with the fact that they would be pissed off as well.
- oscarwao 2y agoTurns out this story is bogus. https://www.fastcompany.com/91302948/amazon-layoffs-14000-managers-false-news-spreads https://www.fastcompany.com/91302948/amazon-layoffs-14000-ma...