[HN Gopher] Internal Amazon documents shed light on how company ... ___________________________________________________________________ Internal Amazon documents shed light on how company pressures out office workers Author : flowerlad Score : 301 points Date : 2021-06-21 18:01 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.seattletimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.seattletimes.com) | [deleted] | lakevieew wrote: | I had joined Amazon as my first job out of school. I was super | excited and would not mind working the long hours as the project | was interesting. I enjoyed working with my team and manager. Just | near the end of the year, my manager quit. The new manager ran my | performance review and assessed that my performance didn't meet | expectations. I was not put on PIP. Instead, there would be a | development plan that I had to complete. I was shocked and tried | hard to not cry during my review. I had never been told earlier | that there were any issues with my performance. | | This review crushed me. It destroyed my confidence in my | programming abilities. To be fair, I had made some mistakes | during my first year at Amazon - had fewer commits and SLOC | compared to my teammates. Being on a work visa meant I could not | quit immediately. I had to endure working there for almost a year | before I got a new job. | | I took me quite some time to gain back my confidence. To this | day, my time at Amazon makes me dread performance reviews. | mulander wrote: | > had fewer commits and SLOC compared to my teammates | | Hope this makes you feel slightly better: | https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Li... | | It is impossible to measure someones productivity using metrics | like commit counts and SLOC. There are times where I don't | commit for weeks and provide actual business value by solving | direct client issues without even a ticket being present. | | At one time at my second IT job, I had a manager reprimand me | (yelling over the phone) that I was away from my desk. I was | remotely supporting a bank fixing consortium credit contracts | (substantial amounts) after a migration. I was told to stop | doing that. So, I told the support tech that my 1-up blocked | this. He told the people at the bank; this went up the chain at | the bank to the main accountants which resulted in a nasty call | from the client to the skip manager of my manager. He called me | back and asked me to resume what I did almost crying on the | phone. Later that year I was selected employee of the year | mostly because of that client constantly sending positive | feedback on my help. | AlexCoventry wrote: | What do you think the reprimanding manager's motivation was? | The possibility that you were doing work he wouldn't get | credit for? | mulander wrote: | He assumed I was not working or doing work for a different | manager (they implemented matrix management and he was at | HQ 70 km away from the town I worked at). I made a | judgement call as that migration was a $20 mln project. | That corporation had time budgeting. I was supposed to | account in a production tracking system every task I did in | 15 minute granularity. I have a ton of crazy stories like | that out of that place. | | In essence, the guy was a micromanager with trust issues. | They later replaced him, with someone that was actually | worse. | ferdowsi wrote: | I still can't believe that Amazon measures performance by | "numbers of commits" and "SLOC". Pure insanity. | wiz21c wrote: | I wonder if people who are hired are being told about that | before signing their contract. | Scramblejams wrote: | Amazonian here, I speak only for myself. FWIW, 4+ years in | as an SDE and I've never been judged on that metric. If I | had a manager like that, I'd bail on them at the first | opportunity. | VRay wrote: | To be fair, some morons at Microsoft do it too | | My skip-level manager put me on a performance improvement | plan there because he said someone else had done 10x as much | work as me. It turned out that the other engineer had closed | out something like 1 "bug" ticket per day, and I'd closed out | 1 "task" ticket per day PLUS some bugs, so I'd done | substantially more work. | | I just waited until my next stock vesting, then took a | severance package and left that rancid shithole. We were | working on some retarded dead-end boondoggle of a device, and | I'm sure everyone in the org got a frowny face on their | report card when it was eventually canceled. | | Ironically, I actually had a pretty decent experience at | Amazon before that. I guess it just goes to show that the | most important thing about any job is your manager and your | team. | kapp_in_life wrote: | >retarded dead-end boondoggle of a device | | It was the amazon dash button wasn't it. | sokoloff wrote: | It sounded like that story was at Microsoft to me, but | now that I know you thought it was Amazon, I can see that | it's ambiguous and could be read either way. | kapp_in_life wrote: | Ah you're probably right that it was at Microsoft. My | brain must have forgotten the first line by the end of | reading the comment, among all the other Amazon specific | stories in this thread. | throw_nbvc1234 wrote: | Or it's just an "objective metric" to use in a paper trail to | fire a person. | throw8881 wrote: | Current engineer at Amazon. Maybe a particular bad manager is | doing this, but there's no institutional mechanism where | management or executives literally count people's commits. | | Worst case, you're on a team who's late on deadlines and you | have 0 commits in the past several months. Yeah, there are | going to be questions about where people's time is being | spent and are those the right priorities. Aside from that, | people aren't comparing commit counts to stack employees. The | simplest reason is - it's much more expensive to let go | someone and re-hire and train another engineer. You won't | hear about that on any of these news stories because it's not | so attention grabbing or interesting. | | Amazon for sure can do better in many areas. No denying that. | | But keep in mind we have a massive workforce of engineers. If | 1% of them are unhappy, and even 5% of those unhappy people | are willing to post about it on Reddit, Hacker News, | Leetcode, or where ever, you're going to feel like every | person at Amazon basically hates their job. | | And the other thing is the people who do respond with | positive experiences don't get the "upvotes" and get their | experiences pushed to the top of the discussion. They often | get down ranked and personally attacked. | | Lastly - No one is counting lines of code. This is actually a | pretty absurd claim, and I can't say it's NEVER happened, but | anyone doing that is a wrong hire. Less code is generally | better. There are no brownie points for more code or more | complexity. Amazon's leadership principals encourage | frugality and invent and simplify. | testing_1_2_3_4 wrote: | they don't | slumpt_ wrote: | Morons at Google do it, too. | | I knew a manager who wore a suit to every fucking meeting, | and would make a point to bring up IC's CL counts and lines | of code changed during calibration / promo review. | | He still works there and likely has sway over the careers of | countless more competent individuals than himself. | | Quitting Google was the best decision I ever made. Good teams | are outnumbered by shitty teams with shitty managers there. | seahawks78 wrote: | Really!!! I am surprised to hear this. I always thought | that Google is akin to "Chocolate factory" for programmers | where programmer is the king and each and every decision is | made by programmers. In my circle, Google is considered to | be the final nirvana and a Software Engineer badge the | ultimate status of "you made it in life". Even I found | their coding interviews so damn hard. In my opinion, they | are at least 5-10x notch harder than interviews at FB, | MSFT, AMZN and other tier-1 places for comparable level. | neonate wrote: | https://archive.is/M2p1Z | myroon5 wrote: | Highly Valued 1 (HV1): we expect 35% of Amazonians are HV1 | | Least effective (LE): we expect 5% of Amazonians are LE | | HV1 Compensation recommendation: 0% YoY | rejectedandsad wrote: | That doesn't sound right, I was HV after promotion and still | got 2%. | myroon5 wrote: | To clarify, HV1? There are 3 levels to HV | rejectedandsad wrote: | Ah, I see. Perhaps it falls under the new "needs | improvement" bucket while hv2 does not. | habibur wrote: | So what's the problem? Is that unethical or illegal? | Traster wrote: | The issue with it is that if your performance isn't up to | scratch managers are more incentivized to force you out than to | work with you to get your performance up. | flowerlad wrote: | Not just that. They can be more lax in their hiring | processes. That is unethical. | safog wrote: | Have you heard of hire to fire? When there's an incentive to | game a metric, the metric gets gamed. | habibur wrote: | Valid point. The system can be gamed. | arkitaip wrote: | Not can, actively is. If you as as manager know that you | have to fire x% of your employees no matter how good they | are as a whole, you are always going to hire certain people | just so you can fire them in order to protect your most | valued people. | | Also, because each hire costs thousands of dollars, the | company is literally wasting millions each year because | Bezos had this dangerously ignorant and dehumanizing idea | that people - except himself of course - are lazy so they | need to be terrorized into being productive by firing a | certain percentage of the employees. | | Ultimately, it damages not just Amazon's brand as a | employer, it reflects poorly on Amazon employees and | managers for going along with this charade. | danuker wrote: | > you are always going to hire certain people just so you | can fire them in order to protect your most valued | people. | | Wouldn't the most valued people get retained at the end, | whether the new hires were "hired to fire"? If so, a | manager has no incentive to do bad hires. | mxvzr wrote: | My understanding is that even once the manager has filled | their team with top performers they'll keep hiring every | year for the sole purpose of firing them later in order | to meet the quota | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | Uhh.. no. I don't know if you ever hired or fired anyone, | but, in US at least, if you don't want your unemployment | insurance to go up, you want to be able to prove that it | was a firing for cause. Perversely, in Amazon case what | this means that manager has to hire an employee just bad | enough that the 'for cause' firing will be ready for him | and he/she just needs to document it. | | I fail to understand how people do not see how this | simple metric can be gamed. Am I the only person thinking | in those weird terms imposed by the system? | nkssy wrote: | If you can get fired because of some messed up policy like this | then you don't need to take ownership for being fired anymore. | Also, why show initiative if you're going to be fired randomly | anyway? Why even work hard at all? Why show loyalty or goodwill? | Just show up, do the work, participate in the general workplace | nonsense purely for appearances and have your parachute always | ready. | | Not sure I'd care if fired from amazon - I'd just blame this | policy. What a weird situation. Utterly demotivating in some | sense if you have high expectations. | | On the flip side I guess you could just treat it as a temp job. | If you get fired you simply shrug and not own it as any kind of | failure on your part. That's kind of liberating in its own way. | | I kind of apply this approach in my sideline startup. I just | pivot and redirect my effort elsewhere when things don't seem | successful. I definitely just shrug them off. Next idea! | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | I understand your argument and it is an interesting given the | technical source of demoralization. | | What I submit to you that this level demoralization already | happened. He already has very limited good will ( won't do | anything extra unless there is a clear benefit to him ). I | won't touch loyalty, because I myself have been through rounds | of layoffs and have long accepted that in a corporation, that | is merely a 7 letter word with little to no meaning. | | I guess what I am saying it is not a new trend. Just a stepping | stone in corporate America. The only difference is now, we | don't get Mr. Burns choosing this, this and this one ( keep the | egghead ); this time is a blackbox algorithm that won't ever | touch the real decision makers ( cuz someone with enough | forethought will add an exclusion list :P ). | nkssy wrote: | I definitely agree this isn't a new trend. | | What I dislike is that these corporations routinely complain | about retention and skills shortages and a host of other | problems. Including a desperate need for temporary and not so | temporary visas for acquiring talent. | | Also, I know a lot of people who regularly work and operate | with the idea they'll be fired for no reason. These aren't | unskilled labor either. This impacts societal cohesion. Its a | dark pattern. | RobRivera wrote: | adopted this life policy for 2 years now. QoL sign. improved | w0mbat wrote: | So what is the percentage of people that must be purged every | year at Amazon? Does that goal vary by country? | | I've seen people quote 5%, 6%, 15% and even 30%. The 30% number | was in the Amazon India post that was high-ranking here | yesterday. | plank_time wrote: | When the stock goes from 200 to 3500 in 10 years, and | consistently goes up and to the right, you won't find too many of | the workers complaining no matter how bad the job conditions are. | I have a friend up in Seattle who is suffering, to the point of | being hospitalized for mental health issues, but refuses to | leave. | | So HR and leadership believe that their system "works" but it's | really that their employees are willing to put up with straight | up torture. They are deluded into thinking that their metrics and | PIP plan work well because their best employees are staying but | it's really just the stock price. | | If the stock price starts to drop for whatever reason. All the | best employees will leave in droves. That's what I saw at Uber | post IPO. | casefields wrote: | It's not just about work conditions. | | Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call | the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you. | | 1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal | master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the | middle of the night, and so on. | | 2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated | infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so | on). He gives the slave some free time. | | 3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things | are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into | account their needs, merit, and so on. | | 4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and | requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The | rest of the time is their own. | | 5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city | (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they | send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains | the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency | threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths | amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains | the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain | dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for | example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking. | | 6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to | vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is | open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the | power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of | your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities | legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on. | | Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the | master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot | withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 | masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed | master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the | benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. | However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in | case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to | persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed | master can do this also. | | 7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and | are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the | 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and | to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off | to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of | their powers. | | 8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, | the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they | commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you | mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In | the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 | for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it | in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had | occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might | commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning | him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.) | | 9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly | tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no | difference to the electoral outcome. | | The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it | no longer the tale of a slave? | | -------------- | | An excerpt from 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia' by Robert Nozick | colinmhayes wrote: | 6 | nxmnxm99 wrote: | I have several friends at Amazon. They all love it. Mostly | because they're workaholics. Most Amazon people you talk to | will say the same things. | | However, you won't see that story featured on Hacker News | because it doesn't fit the "bring down the bourgeoisie" | overwork-porn yay-Sweden narrative that is HN/Reddit. | | My theory is it's because most high performers who work hard | don't have much time for Reddit/HN and it self-selects for the | opposite profile | slaymaker1907 wrote: | Ah yes, the imfamous antiwork news site controlled by a | venture capital firm. | EarlKing wrote: | > When the stock goes from 200 to 3500 in 10 years, and | consistently goes up and to the right, you won't find too many | of the workers complaining no matter how bad the job conditions | are. | | Tell that to the guys in logistics who don't get any options | and bear the brunt of Amazon's bad management. | paxys wrote: | Logistics workers aren't stack ranked, so that's a completely | different problem | civilian wrote: | So, elaborate on your model of the world. Shouldn't the | logistic employees already be leaving in droves since they're | not getting stock? Why aren't they? | thephyber wrote: | > Why aren't they? | | Do you have evidence they aren't? I was under the | impression Amazon warehouse logistics employees had | extremely high turnover (averaging less than 1 year). | | I suspect I agree with you that logistics workers realize | they are on a lower rung of the ladder and are willing to | work for less compensation. I suspect much of janitorial | and security staff in Amazon HQ probably have no access to | stock options either. | a3n wrote: | > I suspect much of janitorial and security staff in | Amazon HQ probably have no access to stock options | either. | | It's likely that security and janitorial are 3rd party | contractors and have no access to anything available from | Amazon whatsoever. | simfree wrote: | Amazon's security works for Securitas at the Seattle | campus, and turnover is extremely high as they try | shenanigans like "Cover the Alarm Panel, do entryway | guarding at the main entrance at the same time (despite | both requiring 24/7 physical presence and not being in | the same area of the building)". | | Amazon has very high security staffing requirements | compared to most other Seattle companies. Absolutely | bonkers IMO | TFortunato wrote: | On top of what other folks said, the warehouse folks not | getting stock is a fairly recent development (2018, when | minimum wage was raised). They do have a shockingly high | turnover rate, but not sure if there is much that can be | said about that relating to stock price currently, given | how soon it's been since their stock comp went away, | combined with the general strangeness of the Covid-19 | pandemic | | https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/amazon-hourly-workers- | lose-m... | dragonwriter wrote: | > So, elaborate on your model of the world. Shouldn't the | logistic employees already be leaving in droves since | they're not getting stock? Why aren't they? | | Wait, does "logistics" include warehouse, where the article | mentions they had reached _150% annual turnover_ | prepandemic? Sounds a lot like "leaving in droves". | a3n wrote: | Yeah, they're leaving in droves. They're also arriving in | droves, which is why Amazon has been able to withstand | 150% turnover. | | But Amazon is now worried that they've worn out much of | the US workforce available for "industrial | athlete"positions. (Their term.) The droves of arrivals | may slow down to dribbles. | ineedasername wrote: | Depends on who is classified as logistics: warehouse | workers are a key component in the logistics l, and they | have %150 annual turn over rate. | htrp wrote: | > Amazon burns through workers so quickly that executives | are worried they'll run out of people to employ, according | to a new report | | Sources: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse- | turnover-wo... | | https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/15/us/amazon- | wor... | wiz21c wrote: | because they may not have other job opportunities ? Because | being screwed is better than having no job at all ? | bob33212 wrote: | I interviewed and got the feeling that people were not | especially happy there. When I asked what they liked about AWS, | 3 said "the stock price going up" | Apocryphon wrote: | Golden handcuffs? More like golden shackles. | hintymad wrote: | It looks a problem peculiar to Seattle as there are not many | choices of hyper-growth companies. I can't imagine the same | dilemma in the bay area, where one can switch from one | promising company to another every week from weeks. | RandallBrown wrote: | Just curious, what hyper growth companies (with public stock) | exist in the Bay Area that don't also have offices in | Seattle? | codezero wrote: | This happens in the Bay Area for a similar but different | reason, the promise that you're on a rocket ship that is pre- | initial exit can hold folks tight with sub dollar stock | options that promise to 20-30x in value if you win the | lottery. | | Smarter folks have just gone for the one or two year cliffs, | this is one of the reasons "job hopping" is looked down on | for high skilled workers and attributed to attitude and not | the companies' failed promises. Obviously not keeping people | is painful for growth too, but it's still a very one sided | power dynamic. | renewiltord wrote: | That seems pretty well-optimized, right? The employees value | the money more than they value well-being, and the company | values the money more than it values their well-being. That is | pretty good alignment. | | Also, why wouldn't you just work elsewhere and buy AMZN stock | if that's all you want. Work at GOOG, sell your stock, buy AMZN | stock. | thebean11 wrote: | Because the stock comes in a 4 year grant. You can't trade | your GOOG for AMZN until vesting. | ndesaulniers wrote: | Grants vest over a period of 4 years, with overlapping | grants generally granted each year. So you don't need to | wait a full 4 years to begin selling. | thebean11 wrote: | Right I know, my point is that if AMZN doubles two years | in and GOOG doesn't, the AMZN worker is better off | because their entire grant has doubled. The GOOG worker | buying AMZN has only doubled _half_ their grant, the | unvested portion is in GOOG which hasn 't moved. | ndesaulniers wrote: | Compare the performance of GOOG vs AMZN over the past 6mo, 1 | yr, 2 yr. | | Amazon's pandemic growth is leveling out. | thanhhaimai wrote: | I'm not a lawyer. | | Please be careful with the advice from the second paragraph. | Talk to your financial advisor and lawyer first. Buying a | large portion of a competitor's stock may violate SEC laws | based on the training I recalled. | startup_excuse wrote: | The reason you wouldn't work elsewhere and invest is the | following: you get hired at Amazon with a total comp of 500k | (180 base + 320k in RSUs). You have been in role for 2 years | and are completely burnt out. However the stock has doubled, | and your total comp (without any raises) is now 820k. That is | too much money for people to walk away from. If you leave for | GOOG you will get in at the current stock price with no | guarantee it will double effectively taking a pay cut. | renewiltord wrote: | That makes sense. I wasn't sure if SDEs get x units or y | dollars worth of stock units each year. The former is most | common, but everything about AMZN is unusual, including the | vest schedule. | TFortunato wrote: | Amazon does it in dollars. Employees have a target comp | figure in dollars, the annual stock refreshers are based | on the price of the stock at that time, so if you got 100 | units one year, and the stock doubles, all things being | equal, you would only get 50 units the next year at | refresh time. | | In practice this means you can make good money off your | hiring grant if price keeps going up, but you will also | see your total comp hit a cliff / drop after a few years, | since while stock going up is usually good, in Amazon's | eyes, you've been lucky to be making more than your | target comp those years and they aren't going to keep | giving you the same amount of units if those units are | worth more. | thanhhaimai wrote: | That logic applies when you joined a while ago. However, | with the stock sky high (P/E 66, double GOOG 33), joining | Amazon right now may not give you that potential upside | anymore. Your managers and long time careers will get a | larger portion of the upside. It's already evident by the | stock growth of GOOG compared to AMZN in the past one | year/quarter. The P/E of Amazon is high, compared with the | growth potential vs others in FAANG. Picking a company to | join is also akin to pick a stock to invest. Low P/E is not | everything, but it's an important part of the equation. | | For non-Staff level SWEs, my opinion is that joining a | FAANG with lower P/E is better for your future earnings. | maverick-iceman wrote: | > For non-Staff level SWEs, my opinion is that joining a | FAANG with lower P/E is better for your future earnings. | | No, because mr. Market has been looking at everything | except P/E, more essentially you can't spend P/E. You | spend price. | | If you want to throw in P/E in the analysis fine, but | then you have to throw in every other element which makes | the stock move: | | 1) Cult CEO who is able to sell the narrative | | 2) Fed policy | | 3) Macro environment | | 4) Odds of company being targeted by the DOJ | | and all the other trillions of factors which influences | the price of a security. | | As Druckenmiller reminds us: "There is not a phenomenon | in the world which doesn't affect the price of a security | in some shape or form, no matter how small" | testing_1_2_3_4 wrote: | Amazon's PE has always been this high | state_less wrote: | But their market cap hasn't. Odds are they won't 5x their | size in the next five years as they did in their last | five. | bin_bash wrote: | That's what people said 5 years ago. | [deleted] | htrp wrote: | You're also on a 4 year 5/15/40/40 vest | rejectedandsad wrote: | That's irrelevant they give you the same amount in | "signing bonus" with a 55/45/0/0 "vest". | sokoloff wrote: | But you're vesting 40% of your initial grant this year | was the point, not that you didn't get the initial "fill | in" cash bonus. | rejectedandsad wrote: | Fair but if you decide to invest in Amazon with the | proceeds you're in the same boat. And other companies do | frequently at least attempt to match scenarios like this | (if you're smart enough to get better offers). | wiz21c wrote: | > The employees value the money more than they value well- | being | | yeah, if it's that then Amazon is not to blame. | [deleted] | rkalla wrote: | Fair point - but you aren't getting it at a 15-30% discount | (ESPP) or 'for free' via RSUs - so paying market rate isn't | as enticing. | _rs wrote: | Does Amazon have an ESPP? I don't think they do. They also | aren't really giving it "for free", they're giving it | instead of additional salary, and when it vests you can | choose to sell it all immediately to make up the salary | difference. | maybelsyrup wrote: | > I have a friend up in Seattle who is suffering, to the point | of being hospitalized for mental health issues, but refuses to | leave. | | It's kind of a hot take, but as someone who passed through | young adulthood during peak social paranoia about suicidal | jihadi terrorists lurking behind every tree, it's really | interesting to see, every now and then in anecdotes like this, | a weird sort of jihadi capitalism appear. It's like, in our | current incentive structure, we find ourselves hitting the | accelerator toward our own doom: this poor fellow at amazon; | the now-famous "deaths of despair" all over rural America; | global climate disaster; etc. Truly all gas, no brakes. | rejectedandsad wrote: | The poor fellow at Amazon can always go to Zillow or | Microsoft not really the same as deaths of despair here. | maybelsyrup wrote: | Yes, correct, but he isn't -- and I'm sure he knows he can | leave to some other firm. He isn't leaving to the point of | being hospitalized. Which is unbelievable to me! | rejectedandsad wrote: | If I didn't have so many distractions that could be me, | honestly, but not for the same reasons - for me Amazon is | just evidence that I'm innately intellectually inferior | and will forever be a lower social class and that hurts | like hell. | yawaworht1978 wrote: | While this is not the most popular imaginable method of | selection, at least every hire gets a reasonably good chance to | survive and will have the prestigious entry on the cv. As for the | 6 percent, most companies have more than that in every | department. Usually people who only survive by brown nosing the | right people or being friends with a manager. | LatteLazy wrote: | My mother worked at a UK state school. They had this over a | decade ago. | retrocryptid wrote: | Also... Amazon likes to say they hire "the best." And I think | they do hire reasonably good people. But I saw a lot of | situations where people were just plain in the wrong job. Like | people who were DevOps experts getting shuffled into DB | programming jobs. Or one guy from Romania who was an excellent | coder -- would crank out reams of well documented, clearly laid | out, well architected C++ code. But most of what they had him | doing was writing shell scripts to set environment variables for | containers as they launched. I don't think he minded -- he was | happy to have a job. But I kept seeing a lot of things like this | and thinking "damn, what a waste of talent." | [deleted] | jandrese wrote: | Has there ever been a company that doesn't say they hire "only | the best"? | 0zymandias wrote: | Yes. The police in the US explicitly reject people with high | IQs. It has been challenged in court but upheld. | | https://www.kake.com/story/32508747/court-oks-barring- | high-i... | acuozzo wrote: | Your reply assumes that [High IQ] => [Good Police Officer], | but the argument in the US is that [High IQ] => [Bad Police | Officer[1]]. | | I don't agree with this personally, but what they are doing | is not equivalent to them exclaiming that "We don't hire | the best". It would only be equivalent if they were | explicitly filtering-out qualities they believe contribute | to being the best, such as discipline, strength, and the | like. | | [1] _Due to boredom, etc._ | weimerica wrote: | Work for a public utility... lack of talented employees was | stated explicit in the interview. | TheHypnotist wrote: | Having worked for a public utility, there is a fair share | of mediocre people but worse yet there are people in | management positions who are entirely incompetent and can't | recognize/don't know what to do with good talent. Funny | enough, some of those people ended up working for Amazon. | [deleted] | crackercrews wrote: | I once heard it said: government jobs are welfare for the | middle class. IMO it's not 100% accurate but it's better | than 50%. | testing_1_2_3_4 wrote: | 100% agree with this. | joshe wrote: | The problem with stack ranking at places like microsoft was | twofold. First small team managers were forced to rank their | reports, and each manager had to get rid of the bottom 10% each | year. If you had 20 employees you had to fire 2 employees each | year. But statistics doesn't work like that, there were many | microsoft teams with all productive employees. And there were | probably teams where 30% of the group should have been | moved/retrained/let go. | | The second is that people respond to incentives. So a manager | might make a bad hire because so they don't have to fire any of | the people they like. The team might not help someone struggling | because they need a sacrifice every year. And finally people | might trade to barely avoid the bottom 10% (if you'll make this | decision i want, i'll rank you higher). Then the people you are | keeping are the low productivity, agile political operators. And | a low productivity highly political worker is 10 times worse for | productivity than the plain version of low productivity worker. | | There doesn't seem to be any indication that Amazon is forcing | this kind of decision on small teams. On a larger scale of 1,000 | or 10,000 workers it makes sense to track if you are losing | people that you don't care about losing or "un-regretted | attrition". It's also good to have a process where a manager says | "this person isn't doing well" and HR says "tell them what they | need to improve and give them a few months" (or find them a | different position). And the manager says "hey that worked" 2/3 | of the time and then fires them when it doesn't. Otherwise you | end up with sudden surprise firings or managers who never fire | anyone. | discodave wrote: | In my experience at Amazon, line managers (5-20 people) still | often act as if they have unregretted attrition goals. | | It's up to the Sr managers and directors if they spread the 6% | goal around all their teams, or let one or two teams "implode". | But the line managers know that their team either needs to | outperform other teams or that the performance management | buzzsaw is likely coming for one or more of their reports. | | Heck, I even saw directors and VP refer to "regretted | attrition" and "unregretted attrition" in all hands meetings. | throwme1234 wrote: | My impression is that most teams have high enough natural | attrition that it doesn't really matter and some teams even | seem completely immune to any sort of real change, even if | they do extremely poorly on their deliverables. I know a few | teams that other teams actively avoid working with, even | preferring to reinvent some of their solutions, yet, more or | less the same people have been working on these | underperforming teams for several years. | rejectedandsad wrote: | I've noticed this too in my time in my org, it's reasonably | common to just rebuild something simple if the other team | isn't responding to your tickets and escalations. The fact | that they are three or four different time zones away from | me on either side of the country doesn't help. | paxys wrote: | It did not work like that at Microsoft at all. Stack ranking | happened at an organization-wide level, so the total pool was | hundreds of employees. It was perfectly normal for one team to | be full of high performers, and vice versa. And being ranked in | the bottom bucket didn't mean you were going to be fired. In | most cases it wouldn't even lead to a PIP. It was simply a | lower bonus, that's it. I have no idea about Amazon but at | Microsoft the whole manager having to fire 1 out of 5 employees | every year was 100% a myth. I worked there for many years and | out of many hundreds of coworkers maybe 2 or 3 were ever fired | for underperforming (while it should have been way more). | | Funny enough the move away from stack ranking was very | unpopular at Microsoft, since the performance review process | became very opaque and way more political. | RandallBrown wrote: | I ended up being on the losing end of the stack ranking at | Microsoft and it was pretty terrible. | | My manager straight up told me that my performance was fine | but because he had to rank _someone_ the lowest, it was my | turn since I was the least experienced on the team. If I had | actually been doing a bad job it wouldn 't have felt as bad | because at least then I would have had some control over the | situation. | | I moved teams shortly after that and my new manager was | pretty surprised to see my last review. He started keeping a | list of other developers on the other teams that I was | helping so he could help me get ranked higher. That felt | super shitty and I left the company right after. | | That happened to be right at the same time they did away with | the stack ranking. I have no idea if it improved things but | it had to be better than what it was. (At least in my part of | the company.) | plank_time wrote: | > So a manager might make a bad hire because so they don't have | to fire any of the people they like. | | This is well documented behavior, even in Jack Welch's book. He | was the one famous for cutting 5% every year at GE. | sokoloff wrote: | At Amazon*, the "bar raiser" has to approve the hire though, | so there's a pretty mechanistic control against the worst | form of this. | | * - as I understand it; never worked there. | ipaddr wrote: | At Amazon you still hire good people you just mark them | poorly because you don't want to break up your team. | TameAntelope wrote: | I get that Amazon is known for their cold, calculated | workforce, but it really takes a special kind of person | to execute a, "hire someone just to fire them no matter | how they do" plan over the course of like, an entire | year, and honestly it's not even in that manager's best | interest if the new person is actually pretty good. | | Are we really suggesting that's the norm at Amazon? | Maybe, but wow. | amzn-throw wrote: | No, you don't: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27378836 | ipaddr wrote: | The link you pointed to mentions how hire managers are | looking to hiring as many good people as possible. Of | course they are if so many people are being fired. | | It says that managers who don't perform well will be out. | And that was the reason given for why this practice | doesn't happen. Wouldn't the existing employees know the | system better and be more valuable? Unless you want to | get rid of someone it is better to keep your existing | staff. Team members can't help the new person because | them doing well would mean putting yourself at risk. It | is setup to be toxic. | throwme1234 wrote: | You can still have bad hires. It happens rarely that the | bar raising process outright fails, but it still happens, | since the data you get out of an interview is very limited. | For example, we had a team member that not only was doing a | bad job on his own stuff, he was a drain on morale and | resources for the whole team, since he constantly | complained about everything, he never tried to learn | anything, he posted big commit dumps every few months - | hundreds of commits at once - and the code quality on those | was abysmal. Luckily we got rid of him pretty fast, but not | fast enough. | hintymad wrote: | Companies implement stack ranking because the management does | not have necessarily visibility to valuate each employee. Those | who can't stand stack ranking should either join a small | startup, where visibility is not issue by nature, or join a | team with explosive growth, so each person's productivity and | impact can easily be gauged. | wiz21c wrote: | > Those who can't stand stack ranking | | Do you imply that standing stack ranking is a quality needed | to work at big tech ? | hintymad wrote: | No, I don't think stack ranking is necessary. It, however, | could be a consequence of bad management or of the belief | that stack ranking is the most effective way of | continuously improving teams. | intricatedetail wrote: | It's modern slavery. You can't explain the fact that most workers | can't even afford to save for a deposit for a small flat and at | the same time company is boasting about making billions and | avoiding taxes. | | They tell workers this lie that the salary they get is adequate | to the value they produce. | | This is despicable. | | These companies should be forced to pay fairly and pay all the | taxes. | the_jeremy wrote: | I don't think this is news to anyone. Yes, Amazon has an | "unregretted attrition" target. The only surprising thing was | this: | | > The company expects more than one-third of employees on | performance improvement plans to fail, documents show | | I assumed it was much higher. | Cd00d wrote: | Agreed. Anecdotally, I have _never_ seen a PIP lead to a turn | around. Honestly, I started to think it was just a way to cover | for wrongful termination. | | What I have seen is PIPs lead to so much stress and anxiety | that people are unrecoverable. | | I unfortunately worked with one person where a PIP led to | hospitalization for thoughts of self-harm, because it was clear | there wasn't going to be success in the current role, but there | was no way to exit effectively (and there were confounding | personal-life stress/factors). The whole thing was a horrific | mess, starting with a nepotism hire, and finishing with | unacceptably incompetent HR. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | PIP means different things at different companies. It's true | that some companies really just use PIPs as a documentation | period to build a case to fire people. | | A lot of managers and companies I know have moved away from | the "PIP" terminology because the acronym has become too | toxic to be productive. Instead, they'll have different names | for their version of the program. | | With few exceptions, managers don't enjoy firing people. We | don't enjoy PIPing people, either. A good PIP (or whatever a | company calls it) is usually structured as a mentorship | program that lays out clear expectations for what is expected | from an employee, pairs them up with mentors who can help get | them there, and involves more frequent check-ins than normal | to help get them on track. | | As a manager, I have seen many PIPs succeed, if executed | properly. I've also seen many fail. One of the common failure | modes is when the employee assumes the worst and doesn't | bother trying to improve. That's one of the main reasons | smart companies don't use the "PIP" terminology any more. | breput wrote: | 85% - 100% is technically "more than one-third". | everdrive wrote: | I was under the impression that a PIP was nearly always a | "here's your chance to get another job" warning, and never | really an earnest chance to improve. Does anyone understand | differently? | retrocryptid wrote: | I was "put on a PIP" by my boss at AMZN, but it turned out it | wasn't really a PIP (i.e. - HR wasn't involved). It was just | my boss trying to pressure me to work 50 hours per week | during the holidays instead of the typical 60. | thereare5lights wrote: | > It was just my boss trying to pressure me to work 50 | hours per week during the holidays instead of the typical | 60. | | I'm not following. | | Is this sarcasm/humor? Why would your boss put you on a PIP | to pressure you to work LESS? | Cd00d wrote: | I think they mean 50 hours a week during holidays instead | of ZERO, which is the typical holiday workload. The | manager saw the holidays as a minor discount to regular | time-commitment. | loopz wrote: | Why would he work during holidays? | tinyhouse wrote: | You don't really know if HR was involved or not. | birdyrooster wrote: | I was put on a PIP at Google and kept my job afterwards, they | basically put massive training wheels on you. I had a | director checking in with me 2-3 a week to put the pressure | on, even doing some pair programming which was interesting. | They really are trying to figure out why you aren't working | well and see if you are a lost cause. | todd_t wrote: | Can you elaborate on the "interesting" aspect of pairing | with the director? | birdyrooster wrote: | I guess it shows that they weren't just going to take a | manager's word it and that multiple levels of management | engaged in a PIP. Especially with how busy this director | was typically, it was a use of their time that I didn't | expect. Also, having a director be competent enough as an | IC to pair program was something I hadn't experienced or | expected. | silicon2401 wrote: | From personal contacts, the same happens at Facebook. If your | performance is good, it means you're not being pushed enough | and you need to increase your workload. What a despicable work | culture that you have to expect to be told that you're not | meeting expectations and that you have to be worked to that | extent. | rejectedandsad wrote: | Yeah, I've heard it's similarly bad at Facebook but people | there don't seem to complain as much because they're the | types of gunners that work 60 hours and claim they work 30. | TFortunato wrote: | I think they may be conflating Focus and PIP/Pivot, since they | mention 35% w.r.t. focus later in the article. | retrocryptid wrote: | This isn't news, but what they don't mention is managers will set | up their own "private" PIPs to frighten workers into doing what | they want. | | It's not news that the big-A wants its software engineers working | 60 hours per week. I interviewed for a principle engineer role | and everything seemed to be going well. But when the offer came | it said "Software Engineer II." I asked about that and they | said... "Oh, don't worry. We have to hire you in at a lower grade | 'cause we can only hire so many principal engineers per quarter. | you'll get automatically promoted at the end of the next | quarter." The money was still pretty good so I didn't think | anything about it. | | Eventually I figured out that they had stiffed me on typical | stock options. The whole bait-and-switch thing was their way to | try and hire Sr. people for Jr. engineer's option grants. | | Of course I wasn't automatically promoted and my boss mentioned, | "oh yeah, you have to do a Dev III project to get promoted to | Software Developer III first." And they expected me to do that | project on my own time. _sigh_ | | Then in the middle of doing a software project for Amazon on my | own fucking time I get moved under a different manager. The first | thing he does is say I've been underperforming and he was going | to put me on a PIP (I had perfect reviews the year before.) How | the hell can you review my work two weeks after I start working | for you? | | About this time I bumped into a former-coworker who mentioned how | happy he was after leaving Amazon. So I say to myself "f** this | sh*" and quit in a couple weeks after getting a decent offer from | another company to do consulting. | | About two months later our HR rep returns from vacation and calls | me up asking why I quit and I tell her it was clear I wasn't | Amazon material, having had perfect reviews for a year and then | being put on a PIP. She then asks "you were on a PIP? that's news | to me," and another friend I knew in HR tells me managers will do | this slimy thing to get more performance out of people during the | holidays where they tell them they're on a PIP, but they really | aren't. If you're on a PIP, HR will be involved. | | Amateur ass-clowns. Everyone talks about how much dosh you'll | bank at AMZN. Not really. I now make about the same amount in | salary, but have a significantly higher equity stake in a smaller | company. | | It might be okay for your first or second job (it's not all | negative, there's plenty of opportunity to learn about computing | at scale.) But you're going to be working 55-60 hours per week to | be promoted and told you're on a PIP just before Thanksgiving. | zzyzxd wrote: | Curious about how effective this kind of "private" PIP can be? | | PIP is scary to foreign workers who are on temporary worker | visa. Losing a job means that you may have to leave the | country, which is a life changing event. | | It is so scary that, in immigrant communities I am familiar | with, it becomes a common sense to not to even dream about | getting out of PIP. If your manager put you on PIP, start | looking for a new job immediately because you don't want to | risk losing your immigration status. | | Don't try too hard on the PIP project, don't try to please your | manager, only put reasonable amount of effort into the project | so they don't have a reason to fire you immediately, and try to | get the f** out as fast as you can. | JMTQp8lwXL wrote: | > you'll get automatically promoted at the end of the next | quarter | | Unless it's in writing, you should never, ever, ever take a | statement like this at face value. | 0zymandias wrote: | Another tactic that Amazon recruiters use a lot to convince | you to take a shitty role: | | "You are coming in at level X, but this role is actually | scoped at level X+1." | | In reality, it means nothing and you can get promoted in lots | of different ways. It is just a trick that unethical | recruiters and managers play. | JMTQp8lwXL wrote: | That statement implies, in no uncertain terms, that the | expectation is more work for less pay. It's a flowery way | of telling the candidate they're getting a bad deal. If you | the scope is X+1, and you pay me X+1, we have no issue. | nunez wrote: | 100% agree. "You'll have a direct path to promotion in _x_ | time" is a common sales tactic recruiters use. | Izikiel43 wrote: | Thanks for giving a great example for me to add Amazon to my | "never work there" list. | silicon2401 wrote: | I was contacted by an Amazon recruiter and did a brief | interview. Rather than a screening call like most companies | I've interacted with, the recruiter wanted me to immediately | fill out their application and start on the technical | assessment, as if it didn't even cross her mind that I might | not be interested in working for them. I filled out the app | as it seemed required for the initial call, and then when I | explicitly asked, I learned that supposedly most people work | 40h weeks. I don't blame her for doing her job and trying to | get applications, but the complete lack of sincerity was | astonishing. I had already decided I'd never work for a FAANG | based on other experiences I've learned about online and | through friends, but it was especially impactful to | experience the culture personally. | trhway wrote: | >This isn't news, but what they don't mention is managers will | set up their own "private" PIPs to frighten workers into doing | what they want. | | Diabolical thing. I remember laughing (other place, other | times) as my manager friend told me about a manager in the org | practicing it. It was an exception though, and I see how it may | be a regular practice at AMZN. | julianeon wrote: | This rate seems high. They're pushing 1 out of 3 people (30%) out | of their workforce every 5 years. Is that sustainable over the | course of, say, 20 years? | | 1-2 percent, I could understand. But I would think the labor | force simply isn't large enough for this to work, long term, at | this high rate. | retrocryptid wrote: | There's the "old fart" tool internally that tells you how many | people were hired after you. I think after 9 months or so, I | was senior to 30% of the corporate jobs. After 12, I was senior | to 50%. | ex_amazon_sde wrote: | I used the same tool an the numbers were very similar 7-8 | years ago. | | The amount of people that I saw leaving matches that | attrition rate. Many were put on unjustified PIPs. | | The 6% in the article is incredibely underestimated. | jandrese wrote: | Seems like there must be so much effort wasted in getting new | people spun up on corporate culture, development style, | internal tooling, etc... only to have half of them gone in | less than a year. | | Or were they simply expanding rapidly at that point? | nunez wrote: | Amazon hires at an insane clip. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | It is possible that you are missing the point of this. While it | works, it is saving company millions in compensation and keep | internal upward pressures low. It is absolutely not | sustainable, but it ever comes to the point that it has to be | adjusted, it can be. And changing those policies will be so | much easier with extra cash in hand to 'attract' new workers. | itsdrewmiller wrote: | Typical turnover in engineering is around 20% annually (maybe | higher for Amazon), so this 6% target is unlikely to have the | impact you are imagining. | Sevii wrote: | Turnover at amazon is high. In my org the rate of turnover is | probably higher than 30% every 5 years. On a 10 person team | losing 2 people in a year is 20% right there. My experience of | the turnover is that it is much higher than 6% a year. | giantg2 wrote: | 20% of the curve is ranked top tier? I'd like to work there. It's | 8% at my company. Of course company also says they evaluate | against a standard, but it's really stack ranking behind the | scenes. It think it's always going to be stack ranked in IT since | the standards/metrics are so vague. | rejectedandsad wrote: | 20% sounds high, I thought it was 15%. Getting ranked TT | usually means you are ripe for promotion but haven't gotten it | that year for whatever reason. | giantg2 wrote: | Yeah, at our company it means you can get promoted onto most | teams (have your choice). I feel like they specifically keep | some people below that so they can't leave as easily. They | also have a "critical man" policy where each department can | designate one or two people as critical so they can't leave | there. | aranchelk wrote: | I recently reread The New Economics. Deming talks about a factory | worker screwing up on the production line, ruining a large | quantity of product, and getting punished for it. He makes the | argument that the design of the line, company policy, etc, have a | far greater impact on workers' productivity than the intrinsic | qualities of those workers. | | I told this to a colleague and she said "well yeah, I can see how | that would be true in a factory but it doesn't apply to | software". I pointed out that I haven't dereferenced a null | pointer in years, and haven't been the cause of a buffer overrun | ever, and that's all because of tooling, not because I'm such a | badass engineer. | | Having been convinced by Deming's arguments, I can't think of | rank-and-yank as anything other than a deeply flawed, costly, and | counterproductive optimization strategy, all based on a false | assumption. | ladyattis wrote: | I always have to wonder at what point does this just result in | lower productivity if you know you're going to have to leave a | company within a few years to another company and go through the | whole process again? I understand that some folks don't learn or | catchup all that much but at some point GOOD ENOUGH should be | GOOD ENOUGH. Instead, we have entire corporations who predicate | their HR culture on the idea of constant churn on what seems like | baseless theories. If it's your immediate boss that's tired of | one particular slacker that's one thing but it's a wholly | different situation when HR comes down on your boss demanding | they fire 6% of their team whether or not they're doing great. | It's this kind of stuff that I think makes it suck to work in | software anymore. | xibalba wrote: | A fact that counters your hypothesis: Amazon is obviously one | of the most productive companies to have ever existed. | | *Edited: Turns out I have been misusing the word | "counterfactual" for quite some time. | GVIrish wrote: | Amazon can be one of the most productive companies ever, and | still be doing self-sabotaging things that will erode their | long term success. | | Truth is that any given time no company is perfect, they can | simultaneously being doing things that give them an advantage | in the market and doing things that undermine their own | efforts. As long as the advantageous stuff outweighs the | self-sabotage, they can be successful. | | Some of the trouble is that people see success and assume | that 100% of the things they are doing are the correct thing | to do. Not considering that maybe the reason they can get | away with one sort of bad behavior is because they have such | a huge advantage in some other area. | | So for Amazon, the soaring stock price serves as a big | financial incentive that allows some employees to overlook | the work environment. But that may not always be the case, | and the more people share negative experiences about the work | environment, the more new people avoid joining altogether. | The negative reputation and the turnover may not be enough to | doom the company, but on the flip side they'd probably be | even more successful in the short and long term if they | didn't have a firing quota. | maurys wrote: | I've always wondered about this. I'd expect this to catch up | with Amazon and not work out in the long term. | | But their stock price keeps going up and they keep eating up | new markets. | tines wrote: | > Amazon is obviously one of the most productive companies to | have ever existed. | | Strictly speaking, I don't think this is a counterfactual. A | counterfactual is a figure of speech that considers a | situation wherein the facts are different than they really | are. For example, "If I were you, I'd quit." This is a | counterfactual, because I am not you, but if I _were_, then | so-and-so would be the case. Google gives the example, "If | kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over." | xibalba wrote: | Indeed, you are correct! *blushing face emoji*. Edit made. | Thank you! | nkssy wrote: | They will fail in multiple ways and this will be a factor in | what eats them out like a cancer. But it will take decades so | really is it an issue for them? Unlikely. They'll still be | profitable. It won't necessarily kill them either. | | Its the equivalent of the corporation being a person smoking | cigarettes. It imparts some benefits and doesn't kill right | away but given enough time it still causes disease. They'll | start to miss opportunities. They'll run slower. | | The metaphor vanishes in a lot of ways though because the | corporation can pivot and simply say "we were wrong". | Microsoft is a perfect example. It regularly threw away | people and this caused damage and various big failures but | not enough to scuttle them. They are still successful. Still | growing. | | Students of history know that Microsoft's story of success | hides a lot of messy details including behavior where plenty | of law had to get involved. Amazon will go down a similar | path. Or has likely already begun. | TameAntelope wrote: | I would go so far as to argue our assumption about Amazon | even _wanting_ to "maximize" productivity may not be | correct. | | It may make sense to guarantee a certain lower-than-maximum | productivity than to shoot for a more risky absolute-maximum- | at-all-times and sometimes miss that shot, and this system | goes for the former. | retrocryptid wrote: | By what measure of productivity? | xibalba wrote: | Almost any mainstream business metric. Here is a brief and | incomplete sample: | | Revenue, net income, employee head count, customer | satisfaction, customer retention, customer lifetime value, | return on invested capital, end price reduction for | customers, stock price and market capitalization, SKUs | available for sale, new products/services launched, etc | etc. | asdfman123 wrote: | And Amazon is very successful because it has dominated | one of the main reasons we use the internet: online | shopping. | | Comparing online shopping revenue to social media revenue | kind of feels like comparing apples to oranges to me. | ipaddr wrote: | Customer lifetime value for non-prime members is under | $1,000, $2300 for prime. Not exactly the leader. | | Amazon has 12 million skus walmart 75 million. | | End price reduction? Amazon is rarely the cheapest. | | Employee headcount, is more or less better? | | Things always seem rosier. | void_mint wrote: | The "productivity" of a company by these definitions is | almost totally unrelated to the productivity of its | employees. | | Amazon could downsize by 90% and most of these would | still hold up. | NathanKP wrote: | As a current Amazon employee I have to say that is pretty | ludicrous. If you actually think Amazon could scale back | to 10% of it's current employees without losing massive | forward momentum and capacity to deliver results then I | don't know what to say. All those metrics would suffer | greatly in both the short and long term. | | In order to scale back that far without suffering | negative results you'd have to assume that those 90% of | people aren't doing much day to day, so their loss would | not be felt, and that is frankly not true and kind of | insulting to the hard work that Amazon employees do. | void_mint wrote: | If a company makes a lot of money, does that mean every | employee is responsible for generating the money they | made? Is it possible to make a lot of money with not a | lot of employees? Does Amazon make less money when | employees take a lot of PTO? | | I'll add 90% was hyperbole. | xibalba wrote: | Just to be clear, I am using the word "productivity" in a | very general sense: output over input. | | I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. How would any | of these metrics not rapidly collapse under a 90% | workforce cut? Are you assuming that the majority of | Amazon is somehow automated? It definitely isn't. | frumper wrote: | If Amazon downsized by 90% then they couldnt drive by my | house two to three times a day so I can quickly get my | prime widgets. | dimitrios1 wrote: | By those metrics, IKEA fits the bill as well. But at what | point do we qualify productivity with some measure of | quality? You'd be hard pressed to argue IKEA produces | _quality_. For all the laurels and new features and | gadgets and gizmos have produced, very few AWS offerings | or new Amazon products are considered best in class. | ptudan wrote: | Top of market quality is obviously not IKEAs goal. There | is no one in IKEA corporate who would argue differently. | | IKEA makes cheap, good enough furniture. Similar to | Amazon's approach. You can't argue that either is not | hitting a certain high quality bar when neither are | striving for it. | | Disclaimer: I work for AMZN | rightbyte wrote: | Ikea has more similarities with Apple than Amazon. Amazon | is a mishmash of stuff being sold, like Dollarstore or | whatever. Ikea is more like the Apple store. Ikea is a | streamlined and well thought out experience. | influx wrote: | What cloud provider is better than AWS? | jokethrowaway wrote: | If you ask me, digital ocean: top notch UX, good | performance, good offering of services (k8s, load | balancing, managed databases). A reasonable and nice | service. | | I use it for some small businesses of mine but I wouldn't | use it for a medium company. I would just get some | servers from smaller provider in different data centers | and deploy whatever I need. | | AWS, was definitely the service that convinced everyone | they needed the cloud. Most of the companies I've seen | move to aws are just wasting money, don't need the | scalability and are massively over-provisioned. | | A few unicorns needs the cloud's powers to scale | massively now - and, given how much it costs, they'll end | up rewriting it anyway to save hundreds of millions a few | years down the line. | dafelst wrote: | Better than AWS at what? Many are better than AWS in | parts of their business - Google's Kubernetes offerings | are far better than AWS's overall, Azure beats the pants | of AWS in Windows hosting, Active Directory hosting, | Confluent provides a better Kafka offering, Snowflake | shits all over Redshift and Aurora (at least for OLAP) | etc. | | That said, AWS is solid and best in class in many areas, | and to paraphrase the old saying: "no one ever got fired | for choosing AWS" | ipaddr wrote: | By price? All of them | spoonjim wrote: | IKEA produces excellent quality for the price. People who | think it's low quality usually don't glue it together or | attach it to the wall when appropriate. | xibalba wrote: | I think a better measure of IKEA would be "value"-the | intersection of price, quality, and problem-solution fit. | | IKEA is not attempting to sell the highest quality | furniture in the world. They are attempting to sell | furniture that is "good enough" at a great price. Have | they succeeded? Their customers seem to have dollar-voted | with resounding "yes". | retrocryptid wrote: | and then you divide it by # of employees and get | something kind of low. | Brian_K_White wrote: | Doubt it | HarryHirsch wrote: | The stock price, of course. Yesterday, in another thread | about Amazon, someone described that the reason AWS works | at all is the size of their firefighting team. It's the | exact opposite of progress, why advance the state of the | art when you have access to a large pool of cheap labour. | xibalba wrote: | The size and growth of AWS' customer base and financial | success is a very strong counterargument to your claims. | Is it possible you are confusing your personal | preferences for the goals of the AWS business? AWS _may_ | seek to advance the state of the art, but this is not the | end goal, per se, but rather one factor that may or may | not achieve the end goal. The end goal is more customers | and greater revenue and profit. | | > someone described that the reason AWS works at all is | the size of their firefighting team | | Customers don't care all that much _why_ AWS "works". | They care _that_ it "works". And, again, it "working" is | not their end goal. Rather, AWS "working" is yet another | means to an end. | retrocryptid wrote: | How does AWS advance the state of the art with | undocumented services that frequently fail? I'm not a big | fan of Azure, but at least they document their services. | NathanKP wrote: | Which services in specific are undocumented services that | frequently fail? | retrocryptid wrote: | Worker productivity is measured as "amount of goods" over | number of employees. If you say "revenue" is the same as | "amount of goods" then Amazon gives you: | | 386.1b dollars / 798k workers = $483,834.58 / worker | | That's impressive, but... Alibaba: $717.3b / 251k workers = | $2.8m / worker FlipKart: $436.2b / 30k workers = $14.5m / | worker Texas Instruments: $14.38b / 30k workers = $468k / | worker G.E.: $75b / 174k workers = $431k / worker | | I would agree with your assertion that it is one of the most | productive companies to have ever existed, but so are a lot | of other companies and they don't seem to hire people just to | fire them later. | | And heck, the last company I worked for was a small firm | capitalized with several tens of thousands of dollars from | its founders followed by a $75k angel round. Its revenues | last year were around $38m with a staff of about 45 people or | around $800k / worker. And they achieved it with a couple | orders of magnitude less investment than AMZN. | random314 wrote: | 436B$ for flipkart? Something is wrong! | sjs7007 wrote: | Maybe it was 436B INR cause USD is definitely wrong. | fred_is_fred wrote: | If you backload RSUs this process saves you a ton of money | actually. | rejectedandsad wrote: | Not really because they pay the same amount in cash in the | first two years. They're just backloading any potential | upside. | JMTQp8lwXL wrote: | I can make great money working in tech without subjecting | myself to a work environment where 6% of my colleagues will be | forced out. So, in a competitive market where tech talent has | its choice in the best employer... why Amazon? I've seen more | articles written about Amazon being a dog-eat-dog place than | any other large tech company. | Scramblejams wrote: | A couple of things come to mind. (Amazonian here, I don't | speak for the company.) | | 1. As with any other big company, it depends on your manager. | I've had good managers my whole time at Amazon, so I've been | a happy camper. If I continue to have good managers (they do | change often), I could see myself staying for a long time. I | like working at Amazon. With a good manager, you may never | even have to think about the whole 6% thing. | | 2. If you get bored here, it's your fault. Amazon's active in | so, so many disciplines and I've had many otherwise satisfied | teammates leave our team because there was another exciting | team doing something they'd never touched but wanted to get | into. These are the kinds of moves that you'd have incredible | trouble making when jumping from one company to another | ("you're a game developer? why on earth should I think you'd | be good at <pretty unrelated thing>?!"), but inside Amazon, | these moves are possible, and the possibilities are pretty | exciting. | tinyhouse wrote: | All companies letting some employees go. Why would companies | keep employees who are consistently underperforming? such | employees usually have negative impact on the company. If you | started a company tomorrow, would you keep such employees? As | long as the process is fair I see no problem with it (fair = | letting employees know months in advance that they are | underperforming and need to improve, offering a decent | severance package based on tenure, etc) | crispyambulance wrote: | It's all in the details of how it actually happens. "Months | to adapt" is fine, but if the objective is to get rid of 6% | of the employees that can be "made to happen" in various | under-handed ways. | | The horror stories here are about folks who were doing just | fine for months and months, but then end up with a new | manager or their manager has a sudden change of mood, and | wham, performance improvement plan. | | No one likes to be blindsided. I wish more companies would | take an honest approach and come up with mutually | beneficial exit-plans with employees that aren't a good | fit. I suppose that's not feasible in a company of such | size and with such growth? | sokoloff wrote: | I've been at several places which would have been improved by | higher levels of management-directed firings. It's not at all | obvious to me that the success rate at Amazon should be | expected to be significantly over 85% of hire-to-performing | employee. Given that, what should they do with the 15% who | don't turn out to be performing employees (for whatever | reason that isn't itself protected class membership)? | rightbyte wrote: | > I've been at several places which would have been | improved by higher levels of management-directed firings. | | If management hire the wrong people they will likely fire | the wrong people too. In my opinion it is better to keep | apparent low performers around since it is so hard to rate | programmers in a fair non game-able way. Especially from | the managers' viewpoint where they don't work side by side | with someone. | sokoloff wrote: | Hiring is often based on around 4 hours of interviews, | which seems like it necessarily creates an incredibly | noisy signal even for the best interviewers and | management chain. | rhexs wrote: | Because they can continually fill the trenches with H1Bs | willing to run the gauntlet. | tmp60beb0ed wrote: | I have worked at startups as well as at Amazon. I would | choose Amazon over most startups. | | In my experience the biggest factor in job satisfaction is | the manager. A good manager can create a great work | environment even with stack ranking. A terrible manager can | kill morale regardless of company policy. | | I like Amazon culture. Managers are mostly experienced and | well-trained. | | Startups vary a lot. Could be amazing but also terrible. Some | of my startup managers were comically bad. I suspect this was | because they were inexperienced. It's like the difference | between parenting your first child versus parenting the third | child. | jameshart wrote: | There's a lot of jobs in the vast excluded middle between | 'Amazon' and 'startups'. | decafninja wrote: | Having Amazon on your resume probably opens many doors. | | True, there are other companies on par or better than Amazon | on many different metrics. Many of them are at least as hard | to get into as Amazon though. | | If my choices are Amazon, or a bunch of lesser known, less | prestigious, or lesser paying companies, I'd take the shot at | Amazon and do whatever possible to last at least a year so I | could put that Amazon name on my resume for future prospects. | | If you're the kind of rockstar ninja wizard that can glean | multiple offers from all sorts of top tech companies, then | ignore all of the above. | titanomachy wrote: | "the kind of rockstar ninja wizard that can glean multiple | offers from all sorts of top tech companies" | | I don't think this is a helpful stereotype. I know lots of | these people and they're quite normal. "Rockstar ninja | wizard" makes these jobs sound a lot more unattainable than | they really are. | decafninja wrote: | I mean, as someone who has yet to crack one FAANG (or | similar level company) offer, a FAANG engineer is someone | that I look up to. But my friends and ex-colleagues who | did crack FAANG did so with difficulty, and they got | rejected from all but the one company that did extend an | offer. They all say if they were to re-interview at their | companies (or another FAANG), odds are they'd be | rejected. | | So someone who can get offers from multiple FAANGs is | someone that I would seriously consider to be on a whole | another level, i.e. a wizard, for lack of a better term. | htrp wrote: | I'd argue FAANG offers are like college admissions, | probably a good 40% of the applicant pool likely | qualifies for the role and can succeed in it, but only | 3-4% of the pool gets the offer | ghaff wrote: | You can argue the numbers and there's probably a top tier | of people who are no brainers. But, yeah, in general at | least for elite university admissions, they could | probably toss most or all of the admitted pile in the | trash, figure out who to admit from the rest of the pile, | and the world would keep on turning just fine. | titanomachy wrote: | If you work at a top-tier company, you'll meet lots of | people who can get multiple offers from top-tier | companies. They are bright, but usually not geniuses. And | they are often a bit obsessed with puzzles :) | Frost1x wrote: | >If my choices are Amazon, or a bunch of lesser known, less | prestigious, or lesser paying companies, I'd take the shot | at Amazon and do whatever possible to last at least a year | so I could put that Amazon name on my resume for future | prospects. | | I don't disagree with your assessment, but this illustrates | just how broken the software labor market is. If you'd work | in a dumpster fire culture as a capable developer _just_ | for resume padding to open doors, something is wrong with | software labor and hiring (which, there 's a _lot_ wrong, | this is but one more example of how perverse the market | is). | | A lesser known, less prestigious, and lower pay position | shouldn't effect your future opportunities if the market is | really selecting on talent that it claims it is. Now if | your lesser known/prestigious location happens to have you | doing CRUD work circa 2000, then sure, but that's | definitely not the case for a lot of places that simply | can't pay the rates Amazon can afford to pay. | [deleted] | dcolkitt wrote: | Generally, compensation is pretty closely tied to revenue | per employee. Not always, but it's a pretty good rule of | thumb. | | Companies that can't afford to pay FAANG wages, typically | don't have FAANG productivity levels. Productivity in | software is closely tied to how effective the technology | and processes are. Most of those factors are fairly | portable across companies. | | So, I would say that an engineer working at a high total | comp firm is likely acquiring more valuable human | capital. Not always, but it's a pretty good rule of | thumb. If a company can afford to pay engineers $300k, | they're probably doing something right, in a way the | company who pays $75k isn't. | HWR_14 wrote: | > Generally, compensation is pretty closely tied to | revenue per employee. Not always, but it's a pretty good | rule of thumb. | | I don't know of any theoretical reason that would be true | nor see any evidence of that in practice. | dcolkitt wrote: | In microeconomics, it's a pretty foundational tenet that | wages normalize to marginal worker productivity. | HWR_14 wrote: | I don't remember that from any of my microeconomic | courses. I mean, maybe you mean society wide (aka macro), | but that's only as average worker productivity rises, and | has nothing to do with particularly efficient single | firms. | nkssy wrote: | Personally, I'd work for Amazon and already be looking | elsewhere the moment I signed up, given how random it seems | in terms of being fired. They're going to fire you anyway. | rejectedandsad wrote: | I actually did that, kept interviewing about every 8-12 | months until last September or so. The problem is none of | my offers were as high as Google new grad offers (all | less than $200k, though one had a $175k base) so I didn't | take any. This was from 4 startups and Citadel. Seems | like being inferior has its own severe monetary costs.... | jokethrowaway wrote: | If you can pass Amazon's interview you can pass any other | fang's interview which will give you the same CV prestige | with probably less hassle. The only people I know who went | to Amazon picked it just because it was the only fang they | passed at and they didn't want to bother doing another | round of interviews or wait for the cooldown period. | | Sure, other fangs have similar internal politics nightmares | - but Amazon seems to be consistently the worst. | asdfman123 wrote: | I failed Amazon like three times in a row (along with | other smaller companies). This last year I expanded my | search and got into Facebook and Google, despite failing | Amazon again. | | Plus there are lots of smaller companies that are as | prestigious within the valley as Amazon. I mean, if you | had to hire someone, would you really consider ex-Amazon | superior to Uber, Snapchat, Microsoft, some random | startup, etc.? | | If I were hiring someone I might actually discriminate | against Amazon because I'd be afraid of absorbing some of | their culture. | decafninja wrote: | How common is it for a candidate to be able to get offers | from multiple FAANGs? | | I would imagine it isn't common, though I could certainly | be wrong. | | The FAANG engineers that I know personally all seem to | have cracked FAANG with a lot of difficulty, and claim | that odds are they would fail if they had to re-interview | for the same position. | [deleted] | rejectedandsad wrote: | Common among the cognitive elites, but the rest of us are | lucky to get one. For me, Amazon was the one. And the | fact that people think the bar is lower (and therefore | I'm stupid) has made me cry myself to sleep before. | ignoramous wrote: | > _It 's this kind of stuff that I think makes it suck to work | in software anymore._ | | Good news is Amazon's management practices aren't | representative of the rest of the tech industry. Bad news is, | of late, a lot of Amazon execs (frustrated with lower | compensation) have joined SV start-ups, which relatively are | (were?) known to be more Google- or Facebook-esque than Amazon- | or Microsoft-esque. | matz1 wrote: | I don't think it matter much, for many people few years in | Amazon is worth it, in term of financial benefit/future job. | jasonladuke0311 wrote: | With the stack-ranking/hire-to-fire stuff, on-call load, and | hilariously backloaded vesting schedule, why do people want to | work there? It seems like such a minefield. | kevstev wrote: | I feel like most of these stories are just coming out recently, | in the last year or so. Maybe things hit a tipping point during | the pandemic? | | I interviewed there about 4.5 years ago, and I didn't know any | of this, and while there were a few red flags, they seemed | mostly around their recruiting process and not with the job | itself- at least until my onsite where my interview became | almost outright combative and hostile at one point- Long story | short, they were implying I couldn't handle their complexity, | and I was just appalled at the mess they had made of it. I had | only minor interest in the particular role, and was hoping to | meet people and network around inside the org since HR sounded | like it just had absolute tunnel vision and "my" rep was just | focused on filling this one specific role, but the process | spanned months and by the time my onsite came around I had | already committed to another job, but figured I would see the | process through. I headed on the flight back with zero interest | in working with that team, though I did love the dog friendly | culture. I wrote about this in more depth in the past if you | are interested I can dig it up. | | But in general, while it wasn't regarded as a cushy place | (compared to say Google), I never knew it to be a meat grinder | until recently. If anything about 3 years ago, I started | hearing that working on the business side was problematic, but | its much more recent that those stories started coming out from | the engineering side of things. | throw8881 wrote: | >I feel like most of these stories are just coming out | recently, in the last year or so. Maybe things hit a tipping | point during the pandemic? | | Current Amazon engineer here. People have been complaining | working at Amazon for a long while. | | At least in my organization, leadership pays close attention | to whether folks are happy or unhappy in their roles. I | posted this earlier, but we have a massive workforce of | engineers at Amazon, across many countries. If 1% of them are | unhappy, and even 5-10% of those unhappy folks are willing to | say something about it online, you're going to see plenty of | news sites picking up those articles and representing Amazon | in a negative light. | | There's plenty of bad publicity around Amazon, and I think | that's due to the insane growth of this company. Regardless | of your view, Amazon has been insanely successful. With that | success comes suspicion, and you can quickly go from being | very trusted to everyone questioning every practice - from | quality of AWS documentation to Prime shipment speed to | hiring/promotion practices, etc. Alot of people have skin in | this game because they're competing directly with Amazon. | | I'm not saying Amazon can't do better. We absolutely need to. | But alot of the things being represented as systemic issues | at Amazon are simply not so, but they certainly push a | specific narrative. _shrug_ | Apocryphon wrote: | Also wondering if the creation of platforms like Glassdoor, | Blind, even r/CSCareerQuestions have allowed these issues to | come to light. | rejectedandsad wrote: | Ironically, those are all the same platforms that made me | want to contemplate ending it all because I work at Amazon. | After I blocked them at the router level I started to feel | better, until I realized people think I'm inferior no | matter if I see them say it or not. | Apocryphon wrote: | Those places are absolutely toxic (Glassdoor less so) | when people praise themselves, but I think they're useful | in sharing some of the harsh truths about different | company cultures, including Amazon. But I'm sure they | also miss the overall picture as corporations like Amazon | are massive. | kleiba wrote: | No worries - in academia, the number is a lot higher. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-21 23:00 UTC)