Amazon announce two new leadership principles(aboutamazon.com)
aboutamazon.com
Amazon announce two new leadership principles
https://www.aboutamazon.com/about-us/leadership-principles
184 comments
My first interview out of college (circa early 2000s) was at Amazon. The advice the recruiter gave me was “be ready to talk about our core principles!”
Okay, simple enough!
To this day it is BY FAR the worst experience I’ve ever had in a loop. Everyone was extremely toxic, at least half of the people interviewing me that day were clearly trying to make me feel like shit, and it seemed like the entire goal was to keep me disoriented.
About halfway through the day (it was at least 6-7 hours of interviews straight), I should have just left as it was clear I wasn’t going to get an offer.
In full disclosure, I was under qualified for the job given that it would have been my first job out of college, but I assume that should have been caught well before a full day loop where some of the folks were just using me as a punching bag.
Okay, simple enough!
To this day it is BY FAR the worst experience I’ve ever had in a loop. Everyone was extremely toxic, at least half of the people interviewing me that day were clearly trying to make me feel like shit, and it seemed like the entire goal was to keep me disoriented.
About halfway through the day (it was at least 6-7 hours of interviews straight), I should have just left as it was clear I wasn’t going to get an offer.
In full disclosure, I was under qualified for the job given that it would have been my first job out of college, but I assume that should have been caught well before a full day loop where some of the folks were just using me as a punching bag.
Amazon is asking me, again, to submit my resume there.
My wife wants me to send the resume, because I do need a job, but I already sent several resumes to Amazon (at their own request even!), got interviewed only twice, and both interviews were TERRIBLE.
First interview at Amazon, the interviewer actually didn't show up, so they setup another random guy to interview me, and he had no idea what was going on, so it was just a awkward phone talk for 1 hour.
Second time Amazon had flown people from all over the world to their Brazillian HQ and asked me and a few other candidates to go there get interviewed.
It not only matched your experience, but they managed to out-do themselves in some ways:
1. Some interviewers arrived on the room late, and this caused issues.
2. All of them asked the exact same question, that it was pointless to ask (they wanted me to show my leadership principles in solving conflicts in a past large team, when I told them multiple times I didn't had a past large team in first place).
3. They litearlly forgot me in a room, everyone left the floor, the work day was ending, people left the building, and I was forgotten there for 3 hours, literally, no idea how to even try to leave on my own, until one HR guy showed up, said sorry, gave a bullshit excuse and guided me to the exit of the building.
My wife wants me to send the resume, because I do need a job, but I already sent several resumes to Amazon (at their own request even!), got interviewed only twice, and both interviews were TERRIBLE.
First interview at Amazon, the interviewer actually didn't show up, so they setup another random guy to interview me, and he had no idea what was going on, so it was just a awkward phone talk for 1 hour.
Second time Amazon had flown people from all over the world to their Brazillian HQ and asked me and a few other candidates to go there get interviewed.
It not only matched your experience, but they managed to out-do themselves in some ways:
1. Some interviewers arrived on the room late, and this caused issues.
2. All of them asked the exact same question, that it was pointless to ask (they wanted me to show my leadership principles in solving conflicts in a past large team, when I told them multiple times I didn't had a past large team in first place).
3. They litearlly forgot me in a room, everyone left the floor, the work day was ending, people left the building, and I was forgotten there for 3 hours, literally, no idea how to even try to leave on my own, until one HR guy showed up, said sorry, gave a bullshit excuse and guided me to the exit of the building.
It’s OK to swallow your pride, take a job at Amazon, and then keep looking for another job.
From what I've heard from their former employees (engineer / corporate, not warehouse), the best employer bit is laughable
I've got a personal email from a manager at AWS still sitting in my inbox, and I don't want to reply to it because I have heard so many horror stories from former Amazon employees.
When your reputation in the industry is so bad that potential hires don't even want to start a conversation with you, then you definitely have a problem as an employer. With this new principle, perhaps Amazon is recognizing this as a real problem with respect to recruitment and retention of people with experience.
When your reputation in the industry is so bad that potential hires don't even want to start a conversation with you, then you definitely have a problem as an employer. With this new principle, perhaps Amazon is recognizing this as a real problem with respect to recruitment and retention of people with experience.
Tell them that their reputation is so bad that you'll only continue the discussion if they pay you $1000 for your time.
Help them recognize it.
Help them recognize it.
I've interviewed with them 2 times, and had poor experiences each time. I'm sure I had my own imperfections surface during the interviews, but I've experienced hundreds of interviews at other companies, and I can safely say these were poor.
Maybe I was mostly unlucky, but it left a poor experience on me, and I have no desire to work at Amazon. On the other hand, I had really good experiences at Microsoft. shrugs
Maybe I was mostly unlucky, but it left a poor experience on me, and I have no desire to work at Amazon. On the other hand, I had really good experiences at Microsoft. shrugs
I've had similar experiences. I interviewed for three different roles and backed out of all of them. The hiring managers ranged from OK to egotistical, so it's ironic that one of the new principal is "lead with empathy". What was interesting during my process was that, by the second time, I started to call out Amazon employees for not abiding by the principals they asked me to understand prior to interviewing. Not only did they not "earn my trust" during the process by not following through on expectations they set for timelines in every instance, but when I brought this up ("have a backbone") the employees seemed to take offense that I'd have the nerve.
At this point I have no intention to apply or reply to any recruiter looking for Amazon candidates. It seems as though the majority of their principals are lip service, or I've been unlucky enough to find areas of AWS that I would clearly not want to work in anyway.
At this point I have no intention to apply or reply to any recruiter looking for Amazon candidates. It seems as though the majority of their principals are lip service, or I've been unlucky enough to find areas of AWS that I would clearly not want to work in anyway.
“perhaps Amazon is recognizing this as a real problem”
The real choices here seems to be:
- amazon is “stupid” and does not recognize it as a problem
- amazon is well aware, but does not care, since it benefits them in some way
The real choices here seems to be:
- amazon is “stupid” and does not recognize it as a problem
- amazon is well aware, but does not care, since it benefits them in some way
It could simply be that it is not a problem yet, but is becoming one.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-wo...
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-wo...
You should have linked to the bill that just came out of the Judiciary Committee
> amazon is well aware, but does not care, since it benefits them in some way
Given Amazon's egregious attrition rate and their yearly decimation policy, it's not very likely that they are not aware of what they are doing
Given Amazon's egregious attrition rate and their yearly decimation policy, it's not very likely that they are not aware of what they are doing
In all fairness, maybe that's why they're adding this: the workplace culture and irresponsibility of Amazon are the main things I hear criticized a lot, so this could be them trying to actually address that. I know Amazon, more than most companies, actually rates engineers along these axes.
Then again, this could just be PR mumbo jumbo.
Then again, this could just be PR mumbo jumbo.
> Then again, this could just be PR mumbo jumbo.
It's just PR mumbo jumbo until they consistently display these principles (and let their stock price take a hit because of them, if that's what it takes).
Even if "leadership principles" are currently super important in Amazon's culture, there's going to be massive inertia around behaviors and attitudes that satisfied the older set but violate the new ones.
For instance, are they going to immediately scrap their automated system that evaluates and terminates workers without human intervention (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-28/fired-by-...), because it clearly violates these new principles?
It's just PR mumbo jumbo until they consistently display these principles (and let their stock price take a hit because of them, if that's what it takes).
Even if "leadership principles" are currently super important in Amazon's culture, there's going to be massive inertia around behaviors and attitudes that satisfied the older set but violate the new ones.
For instance, are they going to immediately scrap their automated system that evaluates and terminates workers without human intervention (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-28/fired-by-...), because it clearly violates these new principles?
I dunno. Everything takes time, and I think it's more fair to evaluate them on incremental progress.
If I said "I want to be more Earth-friendly" and decide to add reusable grocery bags to my regimen, I'd hope that people wouldn't lambaste me for not yet going vegan, selling my car, and doing away with my AC unit.
If there were no additional changes beyond my shopping bags, then sure, say that I was spouting nonsense. There's a lot to be said for consistent incremental progress toward a goal, though.
(The automated system is a great example, though, of a system ostensibly working against that goal. Much like me wanting to be Earth-friendly, then buying a new Hummer)
If I said "I want to be more Earth-friendly" and decide to add reusable grocery bags to my regimen, I'd hope that people wouldn't lambaste me for not yet going vegan, selling my car, and doing away with my AC unit.
If there were no additional changes beyond my shopping bags, then sure, say that I was spouting nonsense. There's a lot to be said for consistent incremental progress toward a goal, though.
(The automated system is a great example, though, of a system ostensibly working against that goal. Much like me wanting to be Earth-friendly, then buying a new Hummer)
[deleted]
[deleted]
> In all fairness, maybe that's why they're adding this: the workplace culture and irresponsibility of Amazon are the main things I hear criticized a lot, so this could be them trying to actually address that.
They announced the leadership principles, but they announced no change at all.
If I recall correctly, amazon also likes to tell it's employees that first they need to deliver work at the next level, and then and only then are they considered for the promotion. At best, all I'm seeing here is the exact opposite.
They announced the leadership principles, but they announced no change at all.
If I recall correctly, amazon also likes to tell it's employees that first they need to deliver work at the next level, and then and only then are they considered for the promotion. At best, all I'm seeing here is the exact opposite.
[deleted]
Should savvy readers interpret all of their principles as Orwellian doublespeak?
Seems like selecting leaders who are gullible enough to believe these are all already true about Amazon would be a useful technique for screening out critical thinkers who would argue against immoral business decisions.
Seems like selecting leaders who are gullible enough to believe these are all already true about Amazon would be a useful technique for screening out critical thinkers who would argue against immoral business decisions.
You don't bother to list new principles if you're already living up to them. Charitably, they are an attempt to refocus the company so these are lived up to in the future. Cynically, they are an attempt to use words to avoid needing to change anything in how Amazon operates.
With a new CEO, the more charitable version seems not impossible.
With a new CEO, the more charitable version seems not impossible.
> You don't bother to list new principles if you're already living up to them.
ah, ok, now Don't Be Evil makes more sense
ah, ok, now Don't Be Evil makes more sense
Don't Be Evil wasn't a new principle. It was a foundational one, on which the company grew.
That's why it was scrapped, and the following new principles were listed:
* Respect the opportunity (wtf?)
* Respect the user (lol)
* Respect each other (ahahaha)
Hope it makes sense now :)
That's why it was scrapped, and the following new principles were listed:
* Respect the opportunity (wtf?)
* Respect the user (lol)
* Respect each other (ahahaha)
Hope it makes sense now :)
Don't Be Evil was always on the cynical, "words over actions" side.
It wasn't always that way. It's had a pretty good run.
Fun fact: they scrapped that motto without fanfare just around the time the company went full speed towards where it's going now.
Google hasn't listed Don't Be Evil as a principle in many years now.
Fun fact: they scrapped that motto without fanfare just around the time the company went full speed towards where it's going now.
Google hasn't listed Don't Be Evil as a principle in many years now.
Leadership principles aren't worth anything; it's just nice PR.
It's like a shark telling you it's gone vegan.
It's like a shark telling you it's gone vegan.
Amazon uses leadership principles extensively internally when doing performance evaluations and promotions, and they are baked into nearly every decision, both product and technical. Of course much of this depends on one's interpretation of the principles, but they are definitely not "just nice PR".
The problem is that the leadership principles are sufficiently vague and contradictory, so like any good religious text, they can be used to justify anything by picking and choosing something that supports whatever it is you were going to do anyway.
Want to take action? "Bias for action". Want to sit on a decision? "Dive deep". Want to cut costs? "Frugality". Want to invest more? "Think big".
I agree, from my own time at Amazon, that leadership principles are baked into performance evaluations and promotion. The problem is that, rather than looking at the leadership principles to guide future actions, people take whatever it is they did over the past six months and stick leadership principle labels on those.
Want to take action? "Bias for action". Want to sit on a decision? "Dive deep". Want to cut costs? "Frugality". Want to invest more? "Think big".
I agree, from my own time at Amazon, that leadership principles are baked into performance evaluations and promotion. The problem is that, rather than looking at the leadership principles to guide future actions, people take whatever it is they did over the past six months and stick leadership principle labels on those.
Which leadership principle leads to inventory comingling and listing hijacks? Actually typing that makes it sound snarky, but it's a real question. These are real problems and I'm interested in the reason they aren't top priorities to end, despite all the trouble they've caused. I assume there's some value behind the decisions that are made, and I'm curious to know what that is.
If there's a flaw in the façade of a house, don't blame the foundation.
Which leadership principles are about having their warehouse employees urinate in bottles?
I'd speculate that "customer obsession" and "insist on the highest standards" are used to justify many decisions that are hard on employees. Now there is a counterbalance to those.
It's always Deliver Results.
Frugality.
Principles aren't a bad thing, it's good to write down something we expect everyone to be aligned to.
However, the problem with their Leadership Principles is their leadership, not their principles.
However, the problem with their Leadership Principles is their leadership, not their principles.
[deleted]
In the Gervais Principle sense:
Loser: principles are Orwellian doublespeak
Clueless: believe the principles
Sociopath: principles as needed for my advantage
https://philosophyinhell.substack.com/p/sociopaths-clueless-...
“Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well I have others.”
― Groucho Marx
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1185-those-are-my-principle...
Loser: principles are Orwellian doublespeak
Clueless: believe the principles
Sociopath: principles as needed for my advantage
https://philosophyinhell.substack.com/p/sociopaths-clueless-...
“Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well I have others.”
― Groucho Marx
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1185-those-are-my-principle...
To give intent the broadest benefit of the doubt, maybe that's why they wanted to encode the goal in a principle.
Changing Amazon's corporate culture at this point has to be like relocating the Alps.
Changing Amazon's corporate culture at this point has to be like relocating the Alps.
Yeah, in 2021, employees increasingly expect this from their employers. Of course this could just be for optics and to claim "see, we care", but I think interpretation misses the broader context.
In light of "The Great Resignation", and increasing awareness and activism around work/life balance, socially conscious employers, etc. this kind of move is required. At worst, it's a survival mechanism. A more charitable take is that leadership actually wants to change things.
In either case, if they actually implement this, it's good for employees even if leadership was forced to do this by the current climate.
In light of "The Great Resignation", and increasing awareness and activism around work/life balance, socially conscious employers, etc. this kind of move is required. At worst, it's a survival mechanism. A more charitable take is that leadership actually wants to change things.
In either case, if they actually implement this, it's good for employees even if leadership was forced to do this by the current climate.
Ballmer -> Nadella shows that it is possible.
Curious on folks who have been at both places. My impression is that Microsoft runs a more centralized culture than Amazon?
Well, the biggest difference is probably scale. Amazon has roughly 10x the number of direct employees as Microsoft spread throughout a much wider range of job types.
Some of this is inherent due to what Amazon's business is, but a big chunk of it is that Microsoft outsources essentially every job that's not at the absolute core of their business. Anything outside of that is outsourced to vendors. Microsoft's management of these vendors is basically "make us happy as cheaply as possible or you're fired" and the results for the employees of those companies is about what you'd expect.
Some of this is inherent due to what Amazon's business is, but a big chunk of it is that Microsoft outsources essentially every job that's not at the absolute core of their business. Anything outside of that is outsourced to vendors. Microsoft's management of these vendors is basically "make us happy as cheaply as possible or you're fired" and the results for the employees of those companies is about what you'd expect.
The culture will slowly rot as the company gets larger and as the real visionaries (good or bad) become increasingly disconnected from the boots on the ground.
We're already seeing things like people getting hired and then PIPed within months so that their managers can avoid firing the reports they like...
We're already seeing things like people getting hired and then PIPed within months so that their managers can avoid firing the reports they like...
Well it does say “strive”. Like I’m striving to get on the olympics pole vaulting team by watching it on TV.
It really reminds me of this exchange from Better Off Ted:
Veronica: There is no program to green the building.
Ted: Yeah there is. They made a commercial about it.
Veronica: I didn't say there wasn't a commercial about greening the building. I said there is no program to green the building.
Ted: So it's all a lie?
Veronica: They prefer to look at it as a dream.
Ted: But one they're not working towards?
Veronica: Are you working toward all your dreams, Ted? Then stop pointing fingers.
Veronica: There is no program to green the building.
Ted: Yeah there is. They made a commercial about it.
Veronica: I didn't say there wasn't a commercial about greening the building. I said there is no program to green the building.
Ted: So it's all a lie?
Veronica: They prefer to look at it as a dream.
Ted: But one they're not working towards?
Veronica: Are you working toward all your dreams, Ted? Then stop pointing fingers.
Probably why it's a leadership principle now. When I started there, the first thing I noticed, reading the LPs, was a conspicuous lack of anything employee-centric, which most other big companies have somewhere in their mission statement.
I wonder if "best employer" is even possible for a company at the scale of Amazon. The wants and needs of different members of staff will conflict with one another at scale. What's a great employer for one person is an overly bureaucratic micromanagement nightmare for another. Unless the company is capable of managing every person who works there on an entirely individual basis the goal of "best employer" is ultimately a futile one.
"Not the worst employer" is much more realistic.
"Not the worst employer" is much more realistic.
First thought here as well. On the other hand, that’s a new principle and would require massive changes[1] in the near future if the leaders at the top really mean it.
[1] I say that as someone who has no first hand knowledge of the inner workings of Amazon.
[1] I say that as someone who has no first hand knowledge of the inner workings of Amazon.
Maybe that's why they added it?
[deleted]
I can recall horror stories from their engineers when I was in grad school (around 2004 or so). So I think it is well entrenched.
As someone who got an offer from Amazon (and declined it) recently, this is how you do it. It's impossible to think of these anecdotes on the fly. Take your time and rack your brains for them. Once you have 14 anecdotes, you're good to go. You'll use a couple in the screening interview and then several during the final 5 interviews. It's preferable not to reuse anecdotes.
Tim O'Reilly's blog post (before this announcement, which likely comes on back of Bezos' final annual letter to shareholders [0]) contrasting Ingram's and Amazon's approach towards the marketplaces they operate in sheds light on why the inclusion of these principles is substantial [1].
Leadership principles, though in tension with each other (and so, some argue they really shouldn't be classified as "principles" but rather "values" [2]), permeates the culture of performance and team building at Amazon; and that makes me think this is not only a welcome but potentially a company-defining change.
[0] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2020-letter-to...
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tale-two-platforms-tim-o-reil...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc
Leadership principles, though in tension with each other (and so, some argue they really shouldn't be classified as "principles" but rather "values" [2]), permeates the culture of performance and team building at Amazon; and that makes me think this is not only a welcome but potentially a company-defining change.
[0] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2020-letter-to...
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tale-two-platforms-tim-o-reil...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc
> I never worked at amazon, but throughout the (grueling) interview process you have to memorize these and every question you answer needs to intertwine some of these principles. They tell you to have 2-3 “stories” of how you exemplify each principle.
this would explain why everyone I know that was about to start working there suddenly started parroting this bullshit nearly endlessly whenever anyone mentioned Amazon
this would explain why everyone I know that was about to start working there suddenly started parroting this bullshit nearly endlessly whenever anyone mentioned Amazon
Sounds about right - I spent ~50 hours building and memorizing these stories so surely they leak out elsewhere.
> throughout the (grueling) interview process you have to memorize these and every question you answer needs to intertwine some of these principles.
Is this true of individual contributors, or people looking to go into management? I don't think it's good either way, but it crosses into absurdity if it's the former.
Is this true of individual contributors, or people looking to go into management? I don't think it's good either way, but it crosses into absurdity if it's the former.
It is true of ICs, but a good recruiter will tell you that you don't need to have stories for all 14.
There are really only about 8 or 10 that they expect SDEs to demonstrate.
There are really only about 8 or 10 that they expect SDEs to demonstrate.
These principles are intended to help in decision making. The “Strive to be the world best employer is aimed at managers, but also clearly at HR policy makers”
The sarcastic view is that this is just a facade. However, Amazon has historically took its principles very seriously. They believe that the principles made them who they are. Adding something there that they don’t intend to pursue could risk the integrity of this system as a whole
The sarcastic view is that this is just a facade. However, Amazon has historically took its principles very seriously. They believe that the principles made them who they are. Adding something there that they don’t intend to pursue could risk the integrity of this system as a whole
> Amazon has historically took its principles very seriously.
> Strive to be the world best employer
> The sarcastic view is that this is just a facade.
Given the horror stories from the people who work in the fulfilment centres and deliver for them, I'm going to take the sarcastic view.
> Strive to be the world best employer
> The sarcastic view is that this is just a facade.
Given the horror stories from the people who work in the fulfilment centres and deliver for them, I'm going to take the sarcastic view.
I'm going to take the cynical view that the sarcastic view is nearly always right when applied to Amazon.
But is it really cynical when Amazon has thoroughly demonstrated over the past decade they believe humans” worked should be more like robots and cattle, and that legitimate brands should stop complaining about the rampant brand hijacking and fake reviews?
Out of context those sound like extreme accusations but Amazon’s policies forcing leaders to hire to fire and completely faceless and automated warehouse worker firing and scheduling and regular brand hijakcing like the Klein bottle one on the front page here a couple days ago show that it’s not cynical to distrust Amazon. It’s more like fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Out of context those sound like extreme accusations but Amazon’s policies forcing leaders to hire to fire and completely faceless and automated warehouse worker firing and scheduling and regular brand hijakcing like the Klein bottle one on the front page here a couple days ago show that it’s not cynical to distrust Amazon. It’s more like fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
[deleted]
>Leaders have a vision for and commitment to their employees’ personal success, whether that be at Amazon or elsewhere.
Last few words mean identify low performers and let them to find opportunity elsewhere.
Last few words mean identify low performers and let them to find opportunity elsewhere.
[deleted]
> IMO with how many they have it doesn’t make sense since you are bound to forget nearly all of them day-to-day.
You won't forget them if you end up working there. They're used as rhetorical jabs when people want to win arguments.
Someone more creative than I am could probably do a great comedy sketch in the vein of Darmok using nothing but the leadership principles as dialogue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok
You won't forget them if you end up working there. They're used as rhetorical jabs when people want to win arguments.
Someone more creative than I am could probably do a great comedy sketch in the vein of Darmok using nothing but the leadership principles as dialogue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok
Hahaha — not a sarcastic/malicious laugh. I went through the Amazon interviewing circuit and I remember these principles. I like them. The reason I found this funny is because the two new ones,
1. Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer
2. Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
seem really different in tone relative to the other ones. Everything else sounds like a directive that one cannot disobey, while the confident tone goes down in #1. It's like someone talking tough on certain things, but then in another topic lowers his/her voice and goes slightly quieter
#2 doesn't exactly sound as much of a guiding principle. I can see how one could use it as one, but it sounds more like a fact—a piece of information that is just true regardless of it being a leadership principle or not
I'm at least glad they recognize the issues and are trying to make a statement on it. Hoping that they act on it
1. Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer
2. Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
seem really different in tone relative to the other ones. Everything else sounds like a directive that one cannot disobey, while the confident tone goes down in #1. It's like someone talking tough on certain things, but then in another topic lowers his/her voice and goes slightly quieter
#2 doesn't exactly sound as much of a guiding principle. I can see how one could use it as one, but it sounds more like a fact—a piece of information that is just true regardless of it being a leadership principle or not
I'm at least glad they recognize the issues and are trying to make a statement on it. Hoping that they act on it
>I like them.
I too liked them.
>seem really different in tone relative to the other ones.
Well the downfall of Amazon has started. Yes the 2 do stand out and in my opinion.
>They lead with empathy, have fun at work, and make it easy for others to have fun.
Fun at work? Which idiot came up with this? The definition of work is, what is _not_ fun. While it is critical to make work as tolerable as one can. Aiming to make it fun is either an exercise in naivety which will infantalize the workforce, or an act of insincerity.
I too liked them.
>seem really different in tone relative to the other ones.
Well the downfall of Amazon has started. Yes the 2 do stand out and in my opinion.
>They lead with empathy, have fun at work, and make it easy for others to have fun.
Fun at work? Which idiot came up with this? The definition of work is, what is _not_ fun. While it is critical to make work as tolerable as one can. Aiming to make it fun is either an exercise in naivety which will infantalize the workforce, or an act of insincerity.
I agree. Why isn't #1 "Be Earth's Best Employer"? Amazon didn't get where they are by practicing the rule "Try to be obsessed with customers".
link to the aboutamazon.com blog: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/two-new-leader...
AWS employee here. If you aren't aware, Amazon Leadership Principles are a bit more than the usual wishy-washy "mission statements" you see at a lot of other companies. When I first started I thought they were kind of dumb, but what they do is they give a sort of shared vocabulary when talking to management. It lets you take a position in a way that managers and other employees will take seriously. I've seen people unironically invoke leadership principles in meetings. Saying "I'm going to disagree and commit here" to explain you think a particular decision needs more discussion. Saying we need to "bias for action" when you feel there's too much hesitancy or red tape in the way. And "Customer Obsession" tends to come up a lot when you want to prioritize new features or make improvements. I've personally used that one when people have tried to explain away a bug in a tool or service as you just not using it "properly". Yeah it's a bit silly, but sometimes they are really helpful.
> Saying "I'm going to disagree and commit here" to explain you think a particular decision needs more discussion.
Doesn't "disagree and commit" mean the opposite? I.e., that further discussion is pointless, but a decision has to be made now, and one party budges in favor of the other party?
Doesn't "disagree and commit" mean the opposite? I.e., that further discussion is pointless, but a decision has to be made now, and one party budges in favor of the other party?
no. it means that you disagree with the decision but after the commit that’s what everyone is going to do (you included)
That's exactly what I wrote: "disagree and commit" == end of discussion, everyone pulls in the same direction even if they don't like the decision.
It covers before and after the final decision. Most of the text is about how people are supposed to be tenacious and not compromise for the sake of social cohesion.
yes but no. technically further discussion could lead to a better outcome.
so you’re right here. not right when saying that further discussion would be pointless.
usually disagree and commit is used as a forcing factor by higher ups when the drone cannot make up their minds.
so you’re right here. not right when saying that further discussion would be pointless.
usually disagree and commit is used as a forcing factor by higher ups when the drone cannot make up their minds.
Yes, I also saw it used to bring around recalcitrant people (whether they were “right” or not), e.g. “it’s time for you to disagree and commit”.
Invoking principles like this can be healthy, but it also has a downside. At another FAANG, there was quite a discussion at one point about "weaponizing" such principles against other people - especially "assume good intent" when lack of same was clearly evident. My take is that these principles are things for people to apply to themselves and everyone should be very wary when they're imposed on others.
> these principles are things for people to apply to themselves and everyone should be very wary when they're imposed on others.
I feel like this generalizes to a lot more than just amazon principles.
I feel like this generalizes to a lot more than just amazon principles.
the principles themselves are useful but here’s the thing: people take them literally and without any context a lot of the times effectively turning them into a weapon to show how X and Y don’t show “leadership”.
Here is an example: “Insist on the highest standards” and “Bias for action”. If you have bias for action and want to get shit done you will be dinged for some technically or how the design could have used more work. If you insist in the highest standards you will be dinged for analysis paralysis and told you don’t have bias for action.
Here is an example: “Insist on the highest standards” and “Bias for action”. If you have bias for action and want to get shit done you will be dinged for some technically or how the design could have used more work. If you insist in the highest standards you will be dinged for analysis paralysis and told you don’t have bias for action.
Amazon’s LPs have built in tension. It’s explained away by saying be Right A Lot and judge which side you’re willing to give up.
Also, if you read “bias for action”, it doesn’t say “go off half cocked”, it specifically says that if a decision is easily reversible then you don’t need to spend as much time investigating it as a decision that’s more permanent.
lol. the whole easily reversible (or two way door vs one way door) sounds soooo good in theory. You know what? Everything is reversible. The question is not how reversible it is. The question is how much effort does it take.
also, people use "bias for action" as an excuse to basically do the first thing they can think off. When you push back they will want you to "disagree and commit" and after that when something, anything is delivered the same ppl are gonna claim they were right. In fact they are "right a lot"
also, people use "bias for action" as an excuse to basically do the first thing they can think off. When you push back they will want you to "disagree and commit" and after that when something, anything is delivered the same ppl are gonna claim they were right. In fact they are "right a lot"
I'm sorry but this just does not work. If you are judged by the LPs this will go from "are you embodying these LPs to which one is your weakness". A good boss will coach you on your weaknesses. A bad boss will use this as an excuse to PIP you.
Looks like it's a corporate bible: since contradicting the bible is heresy, the only way to win an argument is to pull a better quote from the bible.
Cult. Run.
Amazon-speak did feel very cult-like to me at first, but overall they do a good job of being intentional about corporate culture and preserving it. Not perfect but I’ve worked at other companies with much more toxic cultures.
Amazon has a lot of businesses, so I'm not really sure who their "customer" is without a specific context, but I can tell you that as a seller on Amazon, I am not the center of anything. My experience with this company is exactly what you'd expect from the rotting quality of a monopoly. I don't think any amount of "leadership principles" will help. I think that competition is the only cure.
I don't think suppliers (and that is basically what you are) are treated well anywhere in retail. My family used to be in private label food production. For all the flack Walmart gets, we considered them one of the best. Walmart. And what you hear about them grinding you to the bone and having strict delivery targets is true.
I completely agree with your comment. I am also a seller on Amazon. Every single decision about my brand have to be done in accordance to Amazon rules where I hardly make profit after trying to fight competitors will low pricing set by Amazon pricing rules, getting charged by Amazon on management fees, self ship on some products and moreover customer system exploitation. There has been several cases customers have returned wrong product and Amazon didn't do anything to look into it. Now some ask me why I use Amazon still then. My answer is to keep money rolling, advertise my brand and generate customer who can be targeted.
On the retail side, increasingly their most important customers appear to be advertisers and sellers buying "sponsored" slots, since that junk is about all I see on Amazon these days as a buyer.
Sellers are the product, not the customer.
>> Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer
They have a long way to go on this one:
1) Many of the headquarters / office jobs require super long hours and are high stress. Employee turnover is high and mental health issues are common.
2) Warehouse and delivery jobs are known for demanding quotas that are practically unrealistic. Working conditions are terrible and management is unsympathetic.
3) In nearly all environments, employees are seen as a replaceable commodity to be exploited, pushed to the limit, and then replaced with new blood after burnout or turnover.
They have a long way to go on this one:
1) Many of the headquarters / office jobs require super long hours and are high stress. Employee turnover is high and mental health issues are common.
2) Warehouse and delivery jobs are known for demanding quotas that are practically unrealistic. Working conditions are terrible and management is unsympathetic.
3) In nearly all environments, employees are seen as a replaceable commodity to be exploited, pushed to the limit, and then replaced with new blood after burnout or turnover.
There's a great talk by Brian Cantrill about Leadership principles [0] which also includes a discussion of the Amazon Leadership principles. He argues that Amazon's leadership principles actually aren't helpful and don't make much sense and I tend to agree.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc
(The part about Amazon starts around minute 26, but I recommend watching the whole talk)
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc
(The part about Amazon starts around minute 26, but I recommend watching the whole talk)
The section on Uber, starting at 36:30, is also well worth watching. This was the talk that made me realize that a company’s principles, as shared, aren’t just PR bullshit. They really do have a profound effect on the culture and behavior of companies.
In contrast, check out netflix's corporate culture principles.
The first few slides call out that Enron's main 'corporate value' was integrity. https://igormroz.com/documents/netflix_culture.pdf
The first few slides call out that Enron's main 'corporate value' was integrity. https://igormroz.com/documents/netflix_culture.pdf
I like a lot of the stuff in these slides, but "adequate performance means you're fired" always seemed stupid to me. It's a contradiction. If your work needs to be better to keep your job, your work is by definition inadequate. You can't have stars in every position because stars are the people who stand out from the other people. It just doesn't make any sense outside of a motivational poster.
You could say instead "performance that would be perfectly adequate at most other companies is a firing offense here." That actually means something. I don't like that one, but at least it has a meaning.
Everything ELSE about this presentation is nice, but it's weird to write all that great information about how "mottos chiseled in stone in the front gate are useless" and then write "we only employ stars!"
You could say instead "performance that would be perfectly adequate at most other companies is a firing offense here." That actually means something. I don't like that one, but at least it has a meaning.
Everything ELSE about this presentation is nice, but it's weird to write all that great information about how "mottos chiseled in stone in the front gate are useless" and then write "we only employ stars!"
Wow, I’d never seen that deck. It’s incredibly honest and direct and does not read like typical corpo-speak. I don’t know if they practice what they preach at Netflix but they definitely got a bit more of respect from me.
I also LOVE the minimalist styling of these slides. Maybe that's because they're meant to be read rather than presented, but my god am I exhausted from prolonged exposure to professionally designed, image-heavy slide decks which seek to minimize the ratio of information to file size and consume so much human talent. Miss me with that stock-photo-of-impossibly-attractive-and-happy-people-white boarding shit.
LOL!!!!!
> In procedural work, the best are 2x better than the average. In creative work, the best are 10x better than the average, so huge premium on creating effective teams of the best
Pulled from their asses
> Great Workplace is Stunning Colleagues
Well, NO. Having smart and competent colleagues is for sure desirable but it is just one trait (Maybe not the most important one)
> Netflix Vacation Policy and Tracking “there is no policy or tracking”
This is a huge huge red-flag.One of the reasons (among many) is that people tend to overestimate their contribution to team and underestimate their peers' .So when Susy takes 2 weeks off (deservedly according to her) you get pissed because you think you have done 2X as much as her and you only took one week off. And this is the tamest of the complications.Vacations should be like salaries, they need to be spelled out very clearly and not subject to ambiguous "rules".
> Highly‐Aligned Loosely‐Coupled teamwork effectiveness is dependent on high performance people and good context. Goal is to be Big and Fast and Flexible.
Thank God they were free of corporate mumbo-jumbo.
Most of the slides are in a similar vein. They want to justify culling people indiscriminately (and they are withing their rights) but they are not being cool, innovative or different because of that. They are just another company which wants to extract as much value from their employees as possible while minimizing the cost.
> In procedural work, the best are 2x better than the average. In creative work, the best are 10x better than the average, so huge premium on creating effective teams of the best
Pulled from their asses
> Great Workplace is Stunning Colleagues
Well, NO. Having smart and competent colleagues is for sure desirable but it is just one trait (Maybe not the most important one)
> Netflix Vacation Policy and Tracking “there is no policy or tracking”
This is a huge huge red-flag.One of the reasons (among many) is that people tend to overestimate their contribution to team and underestimate their peers' .So when Susy takes 2 weeks off (deservedly according to her) you get pissed because you think you have done 2X as much as her and you only took one week off. And this is the tamest of the complications.Vacations should be like salaries, they need to be spelled out very clearly and not subject to ambiguous "rules".
> Highly‐Aligned Loosely‐Coupled teamwork effectiveness is dependent on high performance people and good context. Goal is to be Big and Fast and Flexible.
Thank God they were free of corporate mumbo-jumbo.
Most of the slides are in a similar vein. They want to justify culling people indiscriminately (and they are withing their rights) but they are not being cool, innovative or different because of that. They are just another company which wants to extract as much value from their employees as possible while minimizing the cost.
Netflix was the first SV company to articulate all these ideas (more or less) coherently. They are now pretty common, especially the no-specific-PTO policy.
This is kind of like the "Seinfeld isn't funny" trope.
You may or may not agree with their approach (and apparently it has changed a bit from when it was written - including the head of HR who pushed these ideas being semi-forced out!) but Netflix should get a bunch of credit for innovating on corporate culture.
This is kind of like the "Seinfeld isn't funny" trope.
You may or may not agree with their approach (and apparently it has changed a bit from when it was written - including the head of HR who pushed these ideas being semi-forced out!) but Netflix should get a bunch of credit for innovating on corporate culture.
If you think Netflix is the first company to do this either you are very young and/or very inexperienced. Wharton was founded in the 19th century and Harvard has been granting MBAs since 1908. Corporate-Speak followed not much later.
Sure, many of these ideas have been floating around for a while.
That said, I stand by the claim that you can draw a causal line from the publishing of the Netflix culture deck and the widespread adoption of "Unlimited PTO" for example. NF wasn't the first, for sure, but their deck gained mindshare with a generation of SV executives and implemented the idea at their companies.
Similarly, I'd posit Spotify and Valve had as similar impact as major points of reference. That doesn't mean Drucker doesn't exist, but they are part of the cannon of SV company building Lore.
That said, I stand by the claim that you can draw a causal line from the publishing of the Netflix culture deck and the widespread adoption of "Unlimited PTO" for example. NF wasn't the first, for sure, but their deck gained mindshare with a generation of SV executives and implemented the idea at their companies.
Similarly, I'd posit Spotify and Valve had as similar impact as major points of reference. That doesn't mean Drucker doesn't exist, but they are part of the cannon of SV company building Lore.
You also usually don't know other people's salaries.
Susy can still take two weeks to your one while appearing to do less work because she's a better negotiator
Susy can still take two weeks to your one while appearing to do less work because she's a better negotiator
That's fine and dandy but I know how much I'll earn this month ,not this nebulous concept of "we dont have a salary policy here"
[deleted]
I love Netflix's principles. I used them as inspiration for our own.
Could we take a step back from the scepticism and acknowledge that maybe this is a sign of a company that is trying to change. Unlike google which actively chose to be evil, maybe this a sign of change at Amazon leadership - realising the damage it's doing to their reputation.
Amazon has huge issues to overcome in the near future. I have no doubt the quality issue with their products is going to reach boiling point in the same way it has with warehouse conditions.
Let's see.
Amazon has huge issues to overcome in the near future. I have no doubt the quality issue with their products is going to reach boiling point in the same way it has with warehouse conditions.
Let's see.
Talk is cheap.
As another example, One of Comcast's values is 'Doing the right thing and acting with integrity'. Both from my personal experiences as well as what we see in their other behaviors (Tweeting support for LGBTQ+ yet donating over 1mil to anti LGBTQ+ politicians since 2019, Absolutely kafkaesque fraud department policies, continuing the union-busting and liability-dodging layered contractor system...) one can draw their own conclusions as to whether it's PR fluff or not.
This is also on the heels of the Teamsters announcing their intent to try and unionize Amazon. It smells reactionary to me.
As another example, One of Comcast's values is 'Doing the right thing and acting with integrity'. Both from my personal experiences as well as what we see in their other behaviors (Tweeting support for LGBTQ+ yet donating over 1mil to anti LGBTQ+ politicians since 2019, Absolutely kafkaesque fraud department policies, continuing the union-busting and liability-dodging layered contractor system...) one can draw their own conclusions as to whether it's PR fluff or not.
This is also on the heels of the Teamsters announcing their intent to try and unionize Amazon. It smells reactionary to me.
> Could we take a step back from the scepticism and acknowledge that maybe this is a sign of a company that is trying to change.
Could we take a step back and realize this is pure PR/HR speak to select/attract certain kind of candidates?
Could we take a step back and realize this is pure PR/HR speak to select/attract certain kind of candidates?
I'm generally skeptical of Amazon, but it does have a new CEO who came from AWS, as opposed to.. say, the warehouse operation side of the business.
Maybe, just maybe, the new CEO will care about higher principles just a little bit more than Jeff did.
Maybe, just maybe, the new CEO will care about higher principles just a little bit more than Jeff did.
Just like any non-founding CEO, this guy is on the ropes. If anything (numbers) slips he is gone immediately. So status quo and PR juking are the game.
Jeff gets the praise for founding Amazon. This guy gets the blame if ANYTHING goes wrong. He may not even be able to control the company (see Jeff Immelt).
Jeff gets the praise for founding Amazon. This guy gets the blame if ANYTHING goes wrong. He may not even be able to control the company (see Jeff Immelt).
No, Jassy's AWS has been notorious for brutal software engineering conditions. Worse than the rest of Amazon, which is already bottom 5% of companies ratings by their internal employees.
It can be both.
Judge peoples actions. Their words, from a pr department, what do they mean?
As a whole, these are really good leadership principles. I strive to exemplify these in my own work, and can think of many cases where the leaders I admire exhibit these attributes.
Separately, it makes me curious how individual Amazon managers, and the company as a whole, jive these principles with many of the public, consumer-facing concerns raised nowadays. Things like fake reviews and mixed, counterfeit stock. No doubt there ARE good reasons if one was privy to the whole view, and odds are there are very serious efforts (past and present) to improve things. It's just a good opportunity to reflect on how you can have an organization with great leaders, admirable stated values (that most employees probably take to heart), and still have fundamental, mission-critical issues at play that outwardly appear to be being ignored.
Separately, it makes me curious how individual Amazon managers, and the company as a whole, jive these principles with many of the public, consumer-facing concerns raised nowadays. Things like fake reviews and mixed, counterfeit stock. No doubt there ARE good reasons if one was privy to the whole view, and odds are there are very serious efforts (past and present) to improve things. It's just a good opportunity to reflect on how you can have an organization with great leaders, admirable stated values (that most employees probably take to heart), and still have fundamental, mission-critical issues at play that outwardly appear to be being ignored.
> and still have fundamental, mission-critical issues at play that outwardly appear to be being ignored.
The only place I’ve seen anyone mention these “fundamental mission-critical issues” is HN. My family and friends are Prime subscribers, and I’ve not had an issue in 20 years of Amazon buying.
The only place I’ve seen anyone mention these “fundamental mission-critical issues” is HN. My family and friends are Prime subscribers, and I’ve not had an issue in 20 years of Amazon buying.
It's crunch time, need to hit a critical milestone, severe bug. We need to bring in the team over the weekend to get it done. "Well, I think that working over the weekend goes against 'World's Best Employer'".
"Yeah, but success brings the responsibility to work over the weekend. Plus, being the best employer means helping employees grow, and you'll get plenty of time to grow Saturday."
These sound like banal corporate platitudes to me. Maybe an attempt to put an imprint on post-Bezos culture.
"Yeah, but success brings the responsibility to work over the weekend. Plus, being the best employer means helping employees grow, and you'll get plenty of time to grow Saturday."
These sound like banal corporate platitudes to me. Maybe an attempt to put an imprint on post-Bezos culture.
Apologies if the title seems click-baity. It would have been too long if I included the new principles in there.
The new principles:
* Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer
* Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
I don't work at Amazon, but it's my understanding that they take their leadership principles seriously and use them as they make decisions every day. They do not live up to these two new principles today, but this does seem like a significant step.
The new principles:
* Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer
* Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
I don't work at Amazon, but it's my understanding that they take their leadership principles seriously and use them as they make decisions every day. They do not live up to these two new principles today, but this does seem like a significant step.
Ask amazon warehouse employees if they take these principles seriously.
I worked at AMZN for about 2 years and one thing that I found rather interesting and quite disturbing is how people regurgitate the leadership principles to drive points home and sometimes to bash someone into submission. It was not uncommon to hear someone literally use 2-3 principles in a sentence to emphasize something e.g. "Demonstrate your bias for action and earn the trust of the people you are working.." Funny thing is when I interview at other companies I always use the principles as a reference to answer the questions :-)
Putting bullshit-bingo "principles" up on a website is easy.
Tackling abhorrent amounts of waste and damage to the environment is difficult [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/22/amazon-fa...
Tackling abhorrent amounts of waste and damage to the environment is difficult [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/22/amazon-fa...
>Putting bullshit-bingo "principles" up on a website is easy.
Have you worked at Amazon? They reference these constantly in meetings, structure performance reviews around them, there's a lot of edifice built around them. So adding new ones is a pretty big deal internally.
Have you worked at Amazon? They reference these constantly in meetings, structure performance reviews around them, there's a lot of edifice built around them. So adding new ones is a pretty big deal internally.
At least having the principles published invites internal and external stakeholders to hold Amazon accountable to them.
> Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer
The phrasing is interesting on this one. Amazon's leadership principles have historically been commandment-style edicts followed with unabashed zeal, but this new principle basically says "We'll try"
The phrasing is interesting on this one. Amazon's leadership principles have historically been commandment-style edicts followed with unabashed zeal, but this new principle basically says "We'll try"
Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer at keeping our jack boot on the neck of the union movement.
Nah, I'm.....probably joking
You could claim that it’s more humble. They acknowledge that they are not yet there.
Also - Amazon has used similar wording with regards to their most famous principle (customer obsession). “ Our vision is to be earth's most customer-centric company”
Also - Amazon has used similar wording with regards to their most famous principle (customer obsession). “ Our vision is to be earth's most customer-centric company”
You can measurably fail to be the world's best employer. There are annual reports and metrics and various ways to quantify the quality of an employer and rank them.
You can't fail to try.
You can't fail to try.
"We'll try not to PIP anyone"
[deleted]
Andy is going to be a different (i.e. kinder) leader compared to Jeff
They couldn't just write "Avoid Bad Press?" That seems to cover it more succinctly and it's externally visible, as opposed to the aspirational junk.
My question is "how is the talk walked"? How does action relative to the 13 Leadership Principles translate to performance evaluation at Amazon? Is there a rubric, or are the principles a context for describing someone broadly? Is there an "L.P. metric" or somesuch for looking at strategic decision?
Typically hiring, promotions, transfers, and annual performance reviews are written in a Pro/Con form across the different LPs. As an employee/candidate you need to demonstrate your abilities with respect to the leadership principals, and your peers will provide growth/strength feedback based on them as well.
"Are Right, A Lot"
Does this value annoy anyone else? It screams to me that the only people whose opinions are respected are the ones in leadership positions.
Does this value annoy anyone else? It screams to me that the only people whose opinions are respected are the ones in leadership positions.
I've always found it a bit odd. When is that determination made exactly?
As an engineer the things I'm "right" about are often meaningless. When shit's started to really hit the fan and we're busy putting put production fires nobody cares. But for some perverse reason people still remember the architecture astronaut who devised said mess as being right. And I'm the one who's not a team player and just being difficult.
I think this one's for the managers and "rockstar" engineers.
As an engineer the things I'm "right" about are often meaningless. When shit's started to really hit the fan and we're busy putting put production fires nobody cares. But for some perverse reason people still remember the architecture astronaut who devised said mess as being right. And I'm the one who's not a team player and just being difficult.
I think this one's for the managers and "rockstar" engineers.
No, read it again.
"Leaders are right a lot. They have strong judgment and good instincts. They seek diverse perspectives and work to disconfirm their beliefs."
Work to disconfirm their beliefs - this is the key. It shouldn't be "Are Right, A Lot" but more "Get's Right, Consistently." In practive, this means working to check your assumptions and actually ensure you're ... right.
"Leaders are right a lot. They have strong judgment and good instincts. They seek diverse perspectives and work to disconfirm their beliefs."
Work to disconfirm their beliefs - this is the key. It shouldn't be "Are Right, A Lot" but more "Get's Right, Consistently." In practive, this means working to check your assumptions and actually ensure you're ... right.
lol. you don’t know the lore young padawan.
great leaders frequently change their mind based on new information. so, by definition you are either right because you changed your mind or dumb for sticking with the wrong thing.
that’s some revisionist BS right there, but can you trust someone that is not right? like a LOT!
great leaders frequently change their mind based on new information. so, by definition you are either right because you changed your mind or dumb for sticking with the wrong thing.
that’s some revisionist BS right there, but can you trust someone that is not right? like a LOT!
tbh this is one of the ones that is basically ignored by strained interpretations. i.e., there's a saying that "people who are right a lot are also wrong a lot" which... sort of undermines the plain text of the principle.
> helps us relentlessly pursue our mission of being Earth’s most customer-centric company, best employer, and safest place to work.
I think I’d have more respect for Amazon if they were just honest. It’s clear that they’re not the “best employer” in the world, and furthermore I don’t think they ever can be - their business relies on a fleet of low-paid workers doing manual labour.
I think I’d have more respect for Amazon if they were just honest. It’s clear that they’re not the “best employer” in the world, and furthermore I don’t think they ever can be - their business relies on a fleet of low-paid workers doing manual labour.
I wonder how much of this goal will be considered "accomplished" just by not being direct employers for the people who actually do the grunt work at delivery centers under inhumane expectations.
Amazon should fix those conditions first rather than spitting out more of these high-minded, virtue-signaling platitudes.
Amazon should fix those conditions first rather than spitting out more of these high-minded, virtue-signaling platitudes.
Great how about Amazon creates a single AWS page so I can see all of my resources currently in use with an easy way to cancel each and not be surprised by billing.
If you want to build back trust start there.
If you want to build back trust start there.
you cannot be the BEST employer if you force your workers to build one page where customers can see all their resources /s
I've heard that AWS is struggling to hire and retain, so I see this "Strive to be Earth's Best Employer" and "Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility" as attempts to reform their image as needed to bring in and retain employees.
Best of luck to them. I'm considering new positions, but not with AWS: if I interview with AWS it'll just be for a stronger position negotiating with other employers. Too many red flags at Amazon.
Best of luck to them. I'm considering new positions, but not with AWS: if I interview with AWS it'll just be for a stronger position negotiating with other employers. Too many red flags at Amazon.
If you've worked with Jeff Bezos (I did), you'll recognize this document as an attempt to publically document his conception of his own "best self".
Can you elaborate?
Not really. I think I said it all already. It's just a written version of "how to be like the best version of me by jeff bezos, ceo".
Well their Frugality principle certainly checks out according to the press. Who needs bathroom breaks when you can pee in bottles?
"Frugality Accomplish more with less. Constraints breed resourcefulness, self-sufficiency and invention. There are no extra points for growing headcount, budget size, or fixed expense."
"Frugality Accomplish more with less. Constraints breed resourcefulness, self-sufficiency and invention. There are no extra points for growing headcount, budget size, or fixed expense."
This would feel less self-serving if they weren't making the changes in the midst of:
1. Being concerned about literally running out of people to hire. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-wo...
2. A growing, bipartisan consensus in DC about the need for new anti-trust legislation, and also Amazon's concern about how 'mean' FTC Commissioner Lina Khan is (lol). https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/30/22557456/amazon-lina-khan...
1. Being concerned about literally running out of people to hire. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-wo...
2. A growing, bipartisan consensus in DC about the need for new anti-trust legislation, and also Amazon's concern about how 'mean' FTC Commissioner Lina Khan is (lol). https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/30/22557456/amazon-lina-khan...
I would expect them to be self serving. Self-serving doesn't mean it only needs to benefit Amazon.
16 principles to remember?
1. That’s just too many to remember, let alone navigate.
2. Seems to violate “invent & simplify”
1. That’s just too many to remember, let alone navigate.
2. Seems to violate “invent & simplify”
>>Leaders work every day to create a safer, more productive, higher performing, more diverse, and more just work environment.
Very smart of them to push for a diverse workforce, weak collective feeling so worse at labor organizing.
Very smart of them to push for a diverse workforce, weak collective feeling so worse at labor organizing.
So the new ones are? Interesting.
* Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer
* Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
* Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer
* Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
I'm going to strive to be a tyrannosaurus rex.
These sound overly broad and non-measurable.
That's not the full definition. This is:
Strive to be Earth's Best Employer
Leaders work every day to create a safer, more productive, higher performing, more diverse, and more just work environment. They lead with empathy, have fun at work, and make it easy for others to have fun. Leaders ask themselves: Are my fellow employees growing? Are they empowered? Are they ready for what's next? Leaders have a vision for and commitment to their employees' personal success, whether that be at Amazon or elsewhere.
Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
We started in a garage, but we're not there anymore. We are big, we impact the world, and we are far from perfect. We must be humble and thoughtful about even the secondary effects of our actions. Our local communities, planet, and future generations need us to be better every day. We must begin each day with a determination to make better, do better, and be better for our customers, our employees, our partners, and the world at large. And we must end every day knowing we can do even more tomorrow. Leaders create more than they consume and always leave things better than how they found them.
That said, these are not objectives. They are more like vision statements. I assume goals a measures are derived off of these and updated over time.
Strive to be Earth's Best Employer
Leaders work every day to create a safer, more productive, higher performing, more diverse, and more just work environment. They lead with empathy, have fun at work, and make it easy for others to have fun. Leaders ask themselves: Are my fellow employees growing? Are they empowered? Are they ready for what's next? Leaders have a vision for and commitment to their employees' personal success, whether that be at Amazon or elsewhere.
Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
We started in a garage, but we're not there anymore. We are big, we impact the world, and we are far from perfect. We must be humble and thoughtful about even the secondary effects of our actions. Our local communities, planet, and future generations need us to be better every day. We must begin each day with a determination to make better, do better, and be better for our customers, our employees, our partners, and the world at large. And we must end every day knowing we can do even more tomorrow. Leaders create more than they consume and always leave things better than how they found them.
That said, these are not objectives. They are more like vision statements. I assume goals a measures are derived off of these and updated over time.
Most principles are, no? They have goals and KPIs and reports and what not, these are the leadership principles. One would hope they revise their numbers as well to reflect these principles and correct for unintended consequences.
It can be very difficult what is best, but it is easy to measure that they are not the best in many ways. They can work on improving those.
We're within days of Bezos' departure, and Amazon is immediately signalling traditional, boring "Mission Statements" (this one about 'leadership'). Oddly, the statements (which often refer to we, our) are signed by nobody -- no names at all to associate with the (banal and predictable) words. I'm no cult fan of Bezos (his personality seems annoying), but to become a truly faceless, nameless corporate monolith is...well, expected, I guess.
It doesn't sound like an exciting place to work, overall.
It doesn't sound like an exciting place to work, overall.
The change in leadership has nothing to do with that - by all accounts it's a miserable place to work.
"Leaders do not believe their or their team’s body odor smells of perfume."
What a strange thing to say in an official corporate document...
What a strange thing to say in an official corporate document...
"Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer". I can't laugh hard enough. So ironic and also, best for whom? The business? The shareholders? The employees? At current time it is currently the Earth's Best Employer for Shareholders. Will that change now that leadership has? As an ex-AWSer, I think not, but time will tell.
This is what they say but what do they signal to people in the day-to-day operations?
Some companies howl endlessly about diversity (say) but the signal is very different when every single executive and manager is a white guy with the same privileged (not self made, parents paid their whole way) background.
Some companies howl endlessly about diversity (say) but the signal is very different when every single executive and manager is a white guy with the same privileged (not self made, parents paid their whole way) background.
[deleted]
> Leaders have a vision for and commitment to their employees’ personal success, whether that be at Amazon or elsewhere
This basically authorizes firing of employees based on their performance or am I reading this wrong?
This basically authorizes firing of employees based on their performance or am I reading this wrong?
Maybe scrap the leadership principles and start over instead of thinking an additional amendment will but you good faith in the community of workers that your company habitually shits on and abuses.
They work vigorously to earn and keep customer trust.
Who are their customers? Really? Pretty sure it's not Joe Nobody like me, just some random shopper (who, in my case, no longer buys anything except second-hand books on Amazon because of the counterfeiting and so on).
Are their sellers the real customers? You hear so many stories about sellers being fucked over (like Cliff Stoll, recently fucked over) though. Is it the big sellers? Just who exactly are these customers they're so intent on being trusted by?
Or is it that I can trust them; I can trust them to basically not give a fuck, up to and including (fortunately) refunding me when the box turns up broken or full of counterfeit.
Who are their customers? Really? Pretty sure it's not Joe Nobody like me, just some random shopper (who, in my case, no longer buys anything except second-hand books on Amazon because of the counterfeiting and so on).
Are their sellers the real customers? You hear so many stories about sellers being fucked over (like Cliff Stoll, recently fucked over) though. Is it the big sellers? Just who exactly are these customers they're so intent on being trusted by?
Or is it that I can trust them; I can trust them to basically not give a fuck, up to and including (fortunately) refunding me when the box turns up broken or full of counterfeit.
[deleted]
Good step forward, or two as it may be.
Going to need to see some metrics though, then we can set goals on them, isn't that how Amazon.com went from garage to world concerns ...
Going to need to see some metrics though, then we can set goals on them, isn't that how Amazon.com went from garage to world concerns ...
there are way too many to be meaningful anymore. I work somewhere heavily "inspired" by the leadership principles, but you need to have the smaller core set of values so it is easy to reference them for decision making in your day to day stuff
So if I wanted to be Earth's Best Employer, would that entail perhaps raising pay by, let's say, $1 per hour?
No?
Okay.
No?
Okay.
So I need to rehearse two more stories if I want to interview there? Sign me up for that!
I am interested in how Amazon measures being the earths best employer.
Everything is branded for what it is not.
Quality Hotels
Amazon as Earth's Best Employer
Quality Hotels
Amazon as Earth's Best Employer
Nothing they have to say has value
Amazon dropping some new theory
>> Frugality
Should not be applied to employee salaries and benefits and work environment.
Should not be applied to employee salaries and benefits and work environment.
"Leaders start with the customer and work backwards." So customers first, workers last?
If you don't have a customer, can you have any workers? If you treat your workers poorly, will your customers be treated well?
Just because one is the emphasis doesn't mean the other is not important either.
Just because one is the emphasis doesn't mean the other is not important either.
Working backwards: https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/amazon-uses-a-secret-proce...
Amazon uses "leaders" when talking about self, for all "workers". Internally, others are often considered "customers".
Putting aside all the known issues on the warehouse/blue-collar worker side of things, we've also been hearing about a ton of very, very, bad stuff on the office/SWE/white-collar side of the company too.
Are we likely to see Amazon get evicted from the pantheon of FAANG? I remember 5? 10? years ago the term FAANG hadn't been coined yet. Instead the term being thrown around was "Big 4", referring to Google, Facebook, Amazon, and depending on who you ask, either Apple, Microsoft, or Twitter.
Now Apple is a steady member of FAANG, Netflix joined out of left field, Microsoft got evicted (unless you use the extended FAANGMULA term that seems to be getting some steam), and Twitter seems to have been long left behind.
Are we likely to see Amazon get evicted from the pantheon of FAANG? I remember 5? 10? years ago the term FAANG hadn't been coined yet. Instead the term being thrown around was "Big 4", referring to Google, Facebook, Amazon, and depending on who you ask, either Apple, Microsoft, or Twitter.
Now Apple is a steady member of FAANG, Netflix joined out of left field, Microsoft got evicted (unless you use the extended FAANGMULA term that seems to be getting some steam), and Twitter seems to have been long left behind.
Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer
Leaders work every day to create a safer, more productive, higher performing, more diverse, and more just work environment. They lead with empathy, have fun at work, and make it easy for others to have fun. Leaders ask themselves: Are my fellow employees growing? Are they empowered? Are they ready for what’s next? Leaders have a vision for and commitment to their employees’ personal success, whether that be at Amazon or elsewhere.
Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
We started in a garage, but we’re not there anymore. We are big, we impact the world, and we are far from perfect. We must be humble and thoughtful about even the secondary effects of our actions. Our local communities, planet, and future generations need us to be better every day. We must begin each day with a determination to make better, do better, and be better for our customers, our employees, our partners, and the world at large. And we must end every day knowing we can do even more tomorrow. Leaders create more than they consume and always leave things better than how they found them.