Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Even if we were to assume it is true that the work ethic favored dishonest people, filling the ranks of the peasant hordes/employees with dishonest people doesn't put more dishonest people into management positions.

What kind of policy would favour dishonest people in the ranks while keeping honest ones at the top? I've had a few beers, so maybe I'm not sharp enough, but I don't see the rationality behind this. Wouldn't the honest people at the top not choose to preferentially hire dishonest people?

[conan50]

For me the main question is not if Amazon will implode from having a management school for psychopaths--I suspect they will.
The bottom line question for me it is does this change my relationship with them as a consumer? You bet.
Amazon reacts to basically two things, customers and money. And I will give them kudos that it may even be in that order. Amazon decided letting employees perish in heat and being carried out of their warehouse was too much bad publicity, and now they have Air conditioning in that warehouse. If customers react negatively to this horrible press, at the very least Amazon might take the shackles off of their employees and provide some token benefits. Yet if this disease is top down as it appears, nothing will completely change it without a change at the top. But maybe removing some of the chains from the servants will help customers sleep a bit easier.
The optimist in me wants to believe virtue still exists, that the golden rule may still matter to a few folks, and there will be a large outcry and a hit on Amazon sales--we know how much numbers mean to them.
The pessimist in me fears that as long as people get two day delivery of their toilet paper they will not give a rats ass if people are stepped on and run over to get them their order. Time will tell how this turns out.
I hope my optimist is right.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

I spent 20+ years as an Intel employee, the last 12 as a salaried exempt.

This is on my TBR list even though the reviews have been mixed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...11f_story.html

Do you possibly have a comment on that, or a better suggestion?

[Angst]

For those who didn't read the full article, here are a selection of quotes:

“You walk out of a conference room and you’ll see a grown man covering his face,” he said. “Nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk.”

The internal phone directory instructs colleagues on how to send secret feedback to one another’s bosses. Employees say it is frequently used to sabotage others... ...many workers called it a river of intrigue and scheming. They described making quiet pacts with colleagues to bury the same person at once, or to praise one another lavishly.

“One time I didn’t sleep for four days straight.”

Michelle Williamson, a 41-year-old parent of three [...], said her boss, Shahrul Ladue, had told her that raising children would most likely prevent her from success at a higher level because of the long hours required. Mr. Ladue, who confirmed her account.

A woman who had thyroid cancer was given a low performance rating after she returned from treatment. She says her manager explained that while she was out, her peers were accomplishing a great deal.

A woman who had breast cancer was told that she was put on a “performance improvement plan” because “difficulties” in her “personal life” had interfered with fulfilling her work goals.

A former human resources executive said she was required to put a woman who had recently returned after undergoing serious surgery, and another who had just had a stillborn child, on performance improvement plans.

A 2013 survey by PayScale, a salary analysis firm, put the median employee tenure at one year.

“Purposeful Darwinism,” Robin Andrulevich, a former top Amazon human resources executive [...] posted. “They never could have done what they’ve accomplished without that.”

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rkomar

What kind of policy would favour dishonest people in the ranks while keeping honest ones at the top? I've had a few beers, so maybe I'm not sharp enough, but I don't see the rationality behind this. Wouldn't the honest people at the top not choose to preferentially hire dishonest people?

According to you and a few other people, Jeff Bezos is a psychopath (or possibly a sociopath? will people make up their minds...), and his policies encourage psychopathic warehouse workers.

What does that have to do with all the many non-warehouse workers, especially the people in management positions who aren't Mr. Bezos and who you have not demonstrated any sound reasoning for identification as psychopaths?

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Getting shoved so much work at you that you'd need 80 hours to complete it instead of 40 (assuming you get paid for 40 hours) doesn't make a job a high pressure job. It makes your employer a slave driver.

In the USA, Salary Workers are paid to do the job, not to do 40 (or whatever) hours.

Shame on them for not nailing down a 'normal' work (week) load.
I was lucky, My employer set a number of variable hours over 40 per week that was considered normal. If the company required more, it paid (straight time) for thoseabove normal hours. Product roll out crunch time , Major IT reconfig...

I have also work at places (Hourly), where a coworker (Salary) worked the same 20 hour day I did, for no extra.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by rkomar

What kind of policy would favour dishonest people in the ranks while keeping honest ones at the top? I've had a few beers, so maybe I'm not sharp enough, but I don't see the rationality behind this. Wouldn't the honest people at the top not choose to preferentially hire dishonest people?

Plausible deniability

Just Produce results for the shareholders... (We don't want to know how you got there)

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

According to you and a few other people, Jeff Bezos is a psychopath (or possibly a sociopath? will people make up their minds...), and his policies encourage psychopathic warehouse workers.

What does that have to do with all the many non-warehouse workers, especially the people in management positions who aren't Mr. Bezos and who you have not demonstrated any sound reasoning for identification as psychopaths?

I think you're getting too emotionally involved in defending Amazon. I haven't accused them of anything. I responded to a comment by DiapDealer that looked like he didn't get Angst's message (that a culture that fosters "anything goes" will inevitably lead to trouble). Enron is a good example of that.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I responded to a comment by DiapDealer that looked like he didn't get Angst's message (that a culture that fosters "anything goes" will inevitably lead to trouble). Enron is a good example of that.

Oh, I GOT the message. I just didn't lend it much credence. Cutthroat, dog-eat-dog, ladder-climbing work environments that keep within the boundaries of the law abound. Plus, there's no real evidence that the culture of "anything goes" extended beyond anything other than Enron's officers (and some outsiders).

[tubemonkey]

Bezos doesn't recognize the company the NYT was describing

Dear Amazonians,

If you haven’t already, I encourage you to give this (very long) New York Times article a careful read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/te...workplace.html

I also encourage you to read this very different take by a current Amazonian:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/amazo...ick-ciubotariu

Here’s why I’m writing you. The NYT article prominently features anecdotes describing shockingly callous management practices, including people being treated without empathy while enduring family tragedies and serious health problems. The article doesn’t describe the Amazon I know or the caring Amazonians I work with every day. But if you know of any stories like those reported, I want you to escalate to HR. You can also email me directly at jeff@amazon.com. Even if it’s rare or isolated, our tolerance for any such lack of empathy needs to be zero.

Bolding mine. The entire memo can be found here.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Bezos doesn't recognize the company the NYT was describing



Bolding mine. The entire memo can be found here.

The Digital Reader Blog dealt with the whole thing yesterday:

http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/0...inside-amazon/

Yellow "journalism" lives.

[Cinisajoy]

My opinion is there is good and bad in every company. Both employees and customers.

On the ones screaming to the media, I want to see their entire work history.
I have also seen employees be fired from companies for little violations like stealing then blame the company for firing them.

[Angst]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The Digital Reader Blog dealt with the whole thing yesterday:

http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/0...inside-amazon/

Yellow "journalism" lives.

The salient point for me was Amazon's employee turnover ratio of <1 year. It doesn't matter if Amazon fired them or if they left of their own volition, such a high turnover does not speak well for Amazon's workplace.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Angst

The salient point for me was Amazon's employee turnover ratio of <1 year. It doesn't matter if Amazon fired them or if they left of their own volition, such a high turnover does not speak well for Amazon's workplace.

Have you looked at the turnover at Google?
Microsoft?
B&N?
OVERSTOCK?
Wal-Mart?

Try to look at this one:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_..._stack_up.html


Guess what? Technology and retail employ a lot of young people.
Young people switch jobs.
Oh, and Amazon works both categories.

(Plus, nobody's caught them them running "no poaching" conspiracies to keep employees from leaving. And if the NYT's six month hunt didn't find it...)

Or this one:

http://buzzmachine.com/2015/08/16/hacking-amazons-jungle-coverage/[/url]

Where is the context about work as a whole? Is every office as wonderful as Google and Facebook are supposed to be? No, of course not. We all know that. So to what standard is Amazon being held? Is it better or worse than comparable and realistic (read: unGoogle) workplaces? That’s not in the piece. It needs to be.

Now to balance. Nick Ciubotariu, an engineer and executive at Amazon, wrote a very long rebuttal on LinkedIn, which I found only thanks to a Dan Gillmor link. Amid some amusing techcospeak (an issue “gets actioned”) are clear and sincere explanations for much of what The Times thinks it has exposed. For example, the orientation at any company, taken out of context, might sound like brainwashing; that’s normal. He says that the cases of how employees with pregnancies and health and family issues were allegedly mistreated are appalling and the company must address them. He acknowledges that Amazon might have changed between its founding and his hiring 18 months ago. But he likes working there. He, like many colleagues, is attracted to tackling huge problems — and that is obviously not easy work.

But really, all you need to know is the NYT piece is by Streitfeld.

[harriska2]

Originally Posted by Angst

The salient point for me was Amazon's employee turnover ratio of <1 year. It doesn't matter if Amazon fired them or if they left of their own volition, such a high turnover does not speak well for Amazon's workplace.

I've worked at a university that treated employees like that. The department is a now a shell - even the boss that set that tone left. It really doesn't work well, no matter what you think the end result is. It is not sustainable.