I took a job at Amazon, only to leave after 10 months(benadam.me)
benadam.me
I took a job at Amazon, only to leave after 10 months
https://benadam.me/thoughts/my-experience-at-amazon/
700 comments
> I bag on Amazon a lot on here (which if I were to review with my therapist is likely because I had an absolutely HORRENDOUS experience in an interview loop with them my first step out of college that still makes me nervous in interviews, even 15 years later).
Hey, I had a similar experience with Google! It was my first technical interview for my first job out of college. The interviewer laughed at my code, and then after going through the logic said "Wow I can't believe this actually works."
Personal grievances aside, I've come to think that the Leetcode interview style has morphed from a "let's see how you handle problems at scale" test into an ego-driven hazing ritual. My biggest gripe is that Leetcode is systematically favoring candidates who have months of free time to memorize arbitrary logic puzzles. It makes me sad for the less privileged candidates who might be working a job while also trying to break into the IT field.
Hey, I had a similar experience with Google! It was my first technical interview for my first job out of college. The interviewer laughed at my code, and then after going through the logic said "Wow I can't believe this actually works."
Personal grievances aside, I've come to think that the Leetcode interview style has morphed from a "let's see how you handle problems at scale" test into an ego-driven hazing ritual. My biggest gripe is that Leetcode is systematically favoring candidates who have months of free time to memorize arbitrary logic puzzles. It makes me sad for the less privileged candidates who might be working a job while also trying to break into the IT field.
> "My biggest gripe is that Leetcode is systematically favoring candidates who have months of free time to memorize arbitrary logic puzzles. It makes me sad for the less privileged candidates who might be working a job while also trying to break into the IT field."
I told google that this style of interviewing is discriminatory, especially towards people with families, or other commitments. Never got another call for an interview since ^_^
I told google that this style of interviewing is discriminatory, especially towards people with families, or other commitments. Never got another call for an interview since ^_^
> I told google that this style of interviewing is discriminatory, especially towards people with families
But this is exactly the point, to be discriminatory while using a valid excuse for doing so.
But this is exactly the point, to be discriminatory while using a valid excuse for doing so.
I told one that I am a human being, not a circus animal here to do tricks, and if they want me to do live coding, they'd have to pay me for my time.
Same result as you: The recruiters stopped bothering me.
Same result as you: The recruiters stopped bothering me.
Actually, that's not a half bad idea. If phone interview is passed, on-site time should be paid since the market is too hot. I wasted about 5 hours with Google (I did get an offer after the interview) but it was horrible experience (2019). Maybe if I was paid for that time I could at least justify this incredible time-waste. For example, companies do pay for people to fly-in for onsite interviews, so they do have budget for that.
UPD: I have provided negative feedback to my recruiter and they still reaching out to me. Really doubt companies ever act on any of candidate feedbacks since candidates are not employee (I know my previous company didn't, asking for feedback was just a "wanna look good in your eyes" question).
UPD: I have provided negative feedback to my recruiter and they still reaching out to me. Really doubt companies ever act on any of candidate feedbacks since candidates are not employee (I know my previous company didn't, asking for feedback was just a "wanna look good in your eyes" question).
> "If phone interview is passed, on-site time should be paid since the market is too hot."
And what happens later when the market is not so hot? I was around for both the dot com bust and 2008 recession. The current hot market should not be taken for granted; it isn't going to last forever.
And what happens later when the market is not so hot? I was around for both the dot com bust and 2008 recession. The current hot market should not be taken for granted; it isn't going to last forever.
I bailed on a Google interview loop after the recruiter literally told me that they'd, "like to bring you in and put you through your paces". I'm no one's trained pony.
I'm not a huge fan of coding tests, but as a hiring manager, we do them during my team's interviews.
I'm not looking for a leetcoder. But I've had to reject candidates who otherwise seemed really strong, but then it turns out that they completely struggled with every aspect of a simple python question.
I'm not looking for a leetcoder. But I've had to reject candidates who otherwise seemed really strong, but then it turns out that they completely struggled with every aspect of a simple python question.
I've probably been involved with 500 interviews at this point, primarily as a technical screener. If a candidate is applying for a job that requires working with code in some capacity, it would be foolish not to test and quantify those skills. Someone that muddles through but has fun and learns something during a tough interview is more likely to progress through the pipeline than an "expert" with a chip on their shoulder. I've witnessed a handful of "highly experienced" candidates make it to the onsite interview stage and then epically botch it purely with their attitude when asked to actually solve a problem within a set of constraints (isn't that what engineering is?) In almost all those cases, there were subtle red flags the resume or earlier round of interviews, and the interview question was intentionally designed to dig into those flags.
The difference is that a candidate with a good attitude and growth potential is usually worth hiring even if they're not a fit for the role they applied for, and so the hiring manager will get creative trying to make something work.
Perhaps some of the well known tech companies don't put the same level of care into their interview pipelines, and then folk become jaded and irrational? Does anyone remember that Office episode where Ray Romano interviews for the manager position and talks about how all his old coworkers are jerks while eating a sandwich out of his briefcase?
The difference is that a candidate with a good attitude and growth potential is usually worth hiring even if they're not a fit for the role they applied for, and so the hiring manager will get creative trying to make something work.
Perhaps some of the well known tech companies don't put the same level of care into their interview pipelines, and then folk become jaded and irrational? Does anyone remember that Office episode where Ray Romano interviews for the manager position and talks about how all his old coworkers are jerks while eating a sandwich out of his briefcase?
What's an example of a 'simple python question that someone failed?' And was it something that truly showed incompetance?
In my experience, it turns out to be some dark corner of the language, or a keyword that's not in common use today. Examples are: 'void' in JavaScript and 'boxing' in C#
In my experience, it turns out to be some dark corner of the language, or a keyword that's not in common use today. Examples are: 'void' in JavaScript and 'boxing' in C#
the best part is that when you're done with the on-site you get a survey with a question like "do you think google's making the world a better place?" hah
personally I think they do make some pretty cool things here and there but they do have very pretentious vibe all throughout
the phase of technology that they own/owned is nearing end soon anyway
personally I think they do make some pretty cool things here and there but they do have very pretentious vibe all throughout
the phase of technology that they own/owned is nearing end soon anyway
> do you think google's making the world a better place?
Silicon Valley, season 1 episode 1: "But most importantly we're making the world a better place. Through constructing elegant hierarchies for maximum code reuse and extensibility."
Mike Judge is a genius.
Silicon Valley, season 1 episode 1: "But most importantly we're making the world a better place. Through constructing elegant hierarchies for maximum code reuse and extensibility."
Mike Judge is a genius.
> Mike Judge is a genius.
He really is. Any one of his properties would prove that by itself. Having such keen insights into disparate facets of humanity tells me that he just gets humans on a level not many other people do. Hopefully that doesn’t sound too flowery and pretentious.
He really is. Any one of his properties would prove that by itself. Having such keen insights into disparate facets of humanity tells me that he just gets humans on a level not many other people do. Hopefully that doesn’t sound too flowery and pretentious.
I think he nails satire and weirdness of humans well, similar to apatow, but I think he falls flat on the more emotional or positive aspects of humanity.
Not to say he’s not a master of his craft, and king of the hill especially had tender moments, but maybe that’s just not what he’s interested in
Not to say he’s not a master of his craft, and king of the hill especially had tender moments, but maybe that’s just not what he’s interested in
> I think he nails satire and weirdness of humans well, similar to apatow, but I think he falls flat on the more emotional or positive aspects of humanity.
That's a fair criticism. Much of his work comes off as deeply cynical.
That's a fair criticism. Much of his work comes off as deeply cynical.
He makes comedy, not drama?
When I last saw geto boys live, willie d introduced the set by saying "we know why y'all are here, that's why this is the office space tour. and you know mike judge is the greatest satirist of this generation, watch silicon valley sundays on hbo" and then they went into "still" and bushwick bill beat up a printer on stage with a baseball bat. it was transcendent.
When Amazon reached out to me I told them happy to talk to them, but I don't do coding tests. No response since then. I think it was a friends recommendation though, so in hindsight, maybe I should have at least listened.
I wouldn't feel bad. Friends don't tell friends to work at Amazon. :P
That depends what they know. As this article describes, Amazon is like a federation of mini-companies. So the right team is Great.
why do you want to work for Amazon and Google when there are so many great companies that would appreciate you every day (and pay you more)
No. There are companies where you can have a life, but they are boring. And there are companies that pay you more, but there’s always a catch. In my long resume consisting of Startups to SV Giants, not one company paid you a lot to do less work.
I’ve heard it described as: “You can work on interesting problems, have a great work-life balance, or get paid really well, but you can only select two.”
I don't care about interesting problems. I want to get paid really well and have a great work-life balance.
But I don't think those jobs exist unless you're already an expert in something and can get by on the expertise that you already have. Please prove me wrong!
But I don't think those jobs exist unless you're already an expert in something and can get by on the expertise that you already have. Please prove me wrong!
My take is that any desirable combination probably takes some up-front work, sacrifice, and luck.
For your example combination, I've known entrepreneurs who've met that mark, but it took some initial risk taking and sacrifice. The work isn't sexy by most SV measures but they make extremely good money and one in particular takes months off every year to travel in Europe while in his 30s. I wouldn't call them an 'expert', they just found a niche that other people didn't find interesting enough to pursue.
Likewise, for other combinations (say 'interesting work + high pay') you may have to put in early work for a PhD where you aren't getting paid well initially. For other combinations ('work-life-balance + interesting work') I've known people who essentially worked for free in order to network and prove themselves until they were offered one of those positions.
I guess the point I'm making is that those desirable combinations don't naturally just fall into the laps of most of us but are the product of deliberate and conscience up-front work that can't necessarily be templated out.
For your example combination, I've known entrepreneurs who've met that mark, but it took some initial risk taking and sacrifice. The work isn't sexy by most SV measures but they make extremely good money and one in particular takes months off every year to travel in Europe while in his 30s. I wouldn't call them an 'expert', they just found a niche that other people didn't find interesting enough to pursue.
Likewise, for other combinations (say 'interesting work + high pay') you may have to put in early work for a PhD where you aren't getting paid well initially. For other combinations ('work-life-balance + interesting work') I've known people who essentially worked for free in order to network and prove themselves until they were offered one of those positions.
I guess the point I'm making is that those desirable combinations don't naturally just fall into the laps of most of us but are the product of deliberate and conscience up-front work that can't necessarily be templated out.
The consultant side can do all three, but it’s a tough balancing act. You need the right niche, the right connections, great technical skills, and great social skills.
I would like "interesting problems" + "great work-life balance". Any recommendations on places these days? Don't seem to exist anymore, sadly.
Government. Academia. Speaking from experience. :). You won't get rich, but you won't starve either. And your pension might not be a complete disaster.
Just to pile on late, I would add to this. To meet the "interesting" part, you may be able to extend it to a National Laboratory, which is a bit quasi-government.
The academia route certainly exists, but the glut of of PhDs compared to available positions combined with the amount of complaining I've heard from non-tenured professors would make me a bit hesitant to advocate this route as a general recommendation. But there are other staff positions that might better fit that bill
The academia route certainly exists, but the glut of of PhDs compared to available positions combined with the amount of complaining I've heard from non-tenured professors would make me a bit hesitant to advocate this route as a general recommendation. But there are other staff positions that might better fit that bill
Seconded (I’m in academia, my wife is in government).
CERN ;)
Totally my life. I keep the middle one fixed, and then see-saw on the other two!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Who is paying more than Amazon and Google right now? Investment banks, maybe?
Haha, investment banks do not pay SWEs well at all (outside of certain rare elite niche roles anyways).
You'll be lucky to make half the compensation a FAANG engineer makes at a typical investment bank while always being treated as a second class cost center employee.
Amongst the FAANG companies, my understanding for compensation is:
Netflix, Facebook > Google > Apple, Amazon
...adding in the MULA companies, believe Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb are towards the upper end of the spectrum while Microsoft is towards the lower. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You'll be lucky to make half the compensation a FAANG engineer makes at a typical investment bank while always being treated as a second class cost center employee.
Amongst the FAANG companies, my understanding for compensation is:
Netflix, Facebook > Google > Apple, Amazon
...adding in the MULA companies, believe Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb are towards the upper end of the spectrum while Microsoft is towards the lower. Correct me if I'm wrong.
https://levels.fyi/2021
Also my impression is that Amazon’s effective comp is significantly below the headline number because they heavily backload RSUs and they burn out or fire so many people in the first couple years.
Also my impression is that Amazon’s effective comp is significantly below the headline number because they heavily backload RSUs and they burn out or fire so many people in the first couple years.
usually the signing bonus they offer for years 1 and 2 makes up for the backloaded RSU schedule... at least that's mostly how my offer worked circa 2019
Quants: Citadel and Jane Street.
GL getting in. The interviews are arguably harder than that of FAANG.
I have never had the luck (I guess) to run across a company that is both great to work at and pays well.
If they're great to work at, they don't have to pay top dollar to attract and (more importantly) retain people.
I would argue most* FAANG and similar companies are some of the best companies to work at as a SWE, in addition to paying well.
No company is perfect, not even FAANG. However despite their many warts, I would argue they are still better than working at most other companies outside of the Silicon Valley tech sector where the vast majority of SWEs are employed.
* Of course, there are exceptions. Amazon seems to be particularly notorious.
No company is perfect, not even FAANG. However despite their many warts, I would argue they are still better than working at most other companies outside of the Silicon Valley tech sector where the vast majority of SWEs are employed.
* Of course, there are exceptions. Amazon seems to be particularly notorious.
[deleted]
Google and amazon pay pretty well. Please list a few companies that treat you better and pay more.
(and pay you more).
No.
No.
Just in general this is extremely rude to do as an interviewer. I remember interviewing at Google a few years ago and the interviewer laughed at me when I asked her if they used Kotlin in the mobile app that they were hiring for. Kotlin was pretty standard at the time in most 3rd party apps and nowadays Google never shuts up about it in their dev talks, but back then I guess it was so unlikely that Google itself would be using the language in its own apps that she thought it was funny. It came across as pretty rude in that interview setting, though she probably was not intending to be so.
When I interview people I try really hard not to do stuff like laughing at a serious question or suggestion from a candidate unless they're obviously trying to be funny.
When I interview people I try really hard not to do stuff like laughing at a serious question or suggestion from a candidate unless they're obviously trying to be funny.
> When I interview people I try really hard not to do stuff like laughing at a serious question or suggestion from a candidate unless they're obviously trying to be funny.
Anyone who has worked at a big company knows how much terrible legacy cruft runs the world, and it does take an effort to not be jaded during the interview.
I work for a major cloud hosting company and was fighting with the team that owns a resource manager that runs on each node over some "fancy C++11" features I used, and in an interview I had the same day, the doe-eyed new grad candidate asked me:
Candidate: So do you guys have a chance to use C++20 yet for work? I find it pretty neat Me: Well...it's hard to explain C: How about C++17, are you at least on that? Me: ... C: 11? Me: the standard we use is older than you are
The guy eventually joined and at least I have a pal to commiserate with now.
Anyone who has worked at a big company knows how much terrible legacy cruft runs the world, and it does take an effort to not be jaded during the interview.
I work for a major cloud hosting company and was fighting with the team that owns a resource manager that runs on each node over some "fancy C++11" features I used, and in an interview I had the same day, the doe-eyed new grad candidate asked me:
Candidate: So do you guys have a chance to use C++20 yet for work? I find it pretty neat Me: Well...it's hard to explain C: How about C++17, are you at least on that? Me: ... C: 11? Me: the standard we use is older than you are
The guy eventually joined and at least I have a pal to commiserate with now.
There are several reasons that might be funny. Assuming that funny question = stupid question is going to result in you being offended quite frequently. It's google, the interviewer probably thought it was funny because what you just asked would be logical, but because of insert crazy bureaucratic reason here they can't.
Most interviewers are nice people. Assuming good intent when they laugh is going to be the right assumption most of the time.
Most interviewers are nice people. Assuming good intent when they laugh is going to be the right assumption most of the time.
I think it's nice to be chatty and relaxed in an interview, but a lot of people would think that laughing at a question crosses a line, unless they let you in on the joke. Like, "Do you use Kotlin?" => "Hahahaha! No. Funny thing is, earlier today we decided to rewrite the next major version in Kotlin!"
I don't take offence easily but honestly if there wasn't an explanation for laughter I would straight up ask "What's so funny?".
Imagine how a Russian candidate would feel, when it's culturally "odd" to smile for no apparent reason?
I don't take offence easily but honestly if there wasn't an explanation for laughter I would straight up ask "What's so funny?".
Imagine how a Russian candidate would feel, when it's culturally "odd" to smile for no apparent reason?
Asking "what's funny" is a great response. And you are right - hopefully the interviewer would give an explanation for the laughter.
Re the Russian - it sort of depends if the company is mostly Russian or not. If the culture at a company is such that it's offensive to smile/laugh then it would be better for a laugher to join a different company - ie be gated out, no?
Re the Russian - it sort of depends if the company is mostly Russian or not. If the culture at a company is such that it's offensive to smile/laugh then it would be better for a laugher to join a different company - ie be gated out, no?
Yeah, I worked at Android in google at that time and he probably thought “I wish we could use kotlin”. It was still pretty rude to laugh though, had to be aware many candidates would already be nervous and would find it offensive.
I guess you are clearly correct that some will find it offensive... I think I'd be happy to laugh and offend said people as a mechanism to keep them away. It can be pretty toxic when people assume the worst of others (even if they are nervous)
Ironicly, you describe a very judgmental, insensitive, and quite toxic behaviour.
Edit since I can't reply to your comment: if you lack the emphaty to understand why people may be very reasonably insulted in such cases, you really shouldn't be conducting interviews, IMHO. The irony part is that you actually describe a behaviour that "assumes the worst of others", as you said.
Edit since I can't reply to your comment: if you lack the emphaty to understand why people may be very reasonably insulted in such cases, you really shouldn't be conducting interviews, IMHO. The irony part is that you actually describe a behaviour that "assumes the worst of others", as you said.
The point of interviewing is to make judgements. There is no irony. This judgement is: people who assume the worst of others are toxic to work with.
What is a good reason to be insulted in the kotlin example, if you are the type of person who assumes good intent of others?
They are in an interview which is not a normal situation. The way they read the situation, the interviewer was laughing at them. It is normal and very very common to be oversensitive and misread things like that during an interview.
The interviewee is not your friend, he/she do not know your brand of humor or internal jokes. Additionally, he/she may have cultural differences.
You talked with someone an hour in an unbalanced stressful job related situation and you really think you know something about their personality? Behavioural researchers think that you can't know much. I wouldn't be so judgmental of people you've just met. You should be more aware of the limitations of the interview platform and stick to what you can deduce. (Which is not, that a person is toxic, because he/she felt laughed at)
The interviewee is not your friend, he/she do not know your brand of humor or internal jokes. Additionally, he/she may have cultural differences.
You talked with someone an hour in an unbalanced stressful job related situation and you really think you know something about their personality? Behavioural researchers think that you can't know much. I wouldn't be so judgmental of people you've just met. You should be more aware of the limitations of the interview platform and stick to what you can deduce. (Which is not, that a person is toxic, because he/she felt laughed at)
> The way they read the situation, the interviewer was laughing at them
This is the problem. There are many situations in a career which aren't "normal" and will make people nervous. Giving presentations. Talking to the CEO. Or the boss's boss. Or the leading expert at X. Being in a meeting with all the execs. Or in a performance review. Meeting with clients/customers/potential customers. If every time a person is nervous they assume ill intent of others at the slightest hint, they are going to be problematic. They don't intend to be problematic, but they are.
The point of a mechanism like that given is that you don't have to make a judgement. It's self selecting. In this specific scenario, the kotlin example interviewer a) laughed b) offended a person and c) probably wasn't even aware they had caused offense and d) kept the person out of the company.
If b) had gone down the other path, the person isn't offended and (all else equal) is still enthused to work at the company.
This is the problem. There are many situations in a career which aren't "normal" and will make people nervous. Giving presentations. Talking to the CEO. Or the boss's boss. Or the leading expert at X. Being in a meeting with all the execs. Or in a performance review. Meeting with clients/customers/potential customers. If every time a person is nervous they assume ill intent of others at the slightest hint, they are going to be problematic. They don't intend to be problematic, but they are.
The point of a mechanism like that given is that you don't have to make a judgement. It's self selecting. In this specific scenario, the kotlin example interviewer a) laughed b) offended a person and c) probably wasn't even aware they had caused offense and d) kept the person out of the company.
If b) had gone down the other path, the person isn't offended and (all else equal) is still enthused to work at the company.
Trying to weaponize laughter is the most comically toxic thing I've ever heard of. If you did it I'd say good on you for showing your true colors and saving them the hassle of finding out later.
"weaponize laughter" is a clever sounding spin on what was said... however... a weapon is something designed to inflict damage. The comment above is about keeping people out who will inflict damage to an organization. Maybe you could call it.. using laughter as a shield
Between this and your other comment:
> The point of interviewing is to make judgements. There is no irony. This judgement is: people who assume the worst of others are toxic to work with.
Whew.
The saving grace here is you're so cavalier about this sort of borderline paranoia and megalomania.
It tells me you won't hide it well, and the shrewd candidates will run for the hills.
> The point of interviewing is to make judgements. There is no irony. This judgement is: people who assume the worst of others are toxic to work with.
Whew.
The saving grace here is you're so cavalier about this sort of borderline paranoia and megalomania.
It tells me you won't hide it well, and the shrewd candidates will run for the hills.
You seem to be assuming bad intent....
It really is helpful, socially, to assume good intent. It avoids unnecessary arguments (/wars). Additionally, if you spend a little time digging in when you have assumed bad intent, you'll almost always find that the person has good intent, there has just been a misunderstanding, or miscommunication, or they face very different incentives or have a different set of underlying assumptions.
As for megalomania - it's likely we live in different locations/and or work in different industries. Where I am, interviewers don't hold the power. Candidates do. Especially candidates who are judged to be good. Good candidates make a judgement call as to where they want to work because they have many options. They exercise said power, negotiate higher salaries, and leave if they don't like the arrangement. And good for them, they have in demand skills and a good attitude.
I understand it isn't like this in all locations/industries.
It really is helpful, socially, to assume good intent. It avoids unnecessary arguments (/wars). Additionally, if you spend a little time digging in when you have assumed bad intent, you'll almost always find that the person has good intent, there has just been a misunderstanding, or miscommunication, or they face very different incentives or have a different set of underlying assumptions.
As for megalomania - it's likely we live in different locations/and or work in different industries. Where I am, interviewers don't hold the power. Candidates do. Especially candidates who are judged to be good. Good candidates make a judgement call as to where they want to work because they have many options. They exercise said power, negotiate higher salaries, and leave if they don't like the arrangement. And good for them, they have in demand skills and a good attitude.
I understand it isn't like this in all locations/industries.
Why do you think I said they'd run from you?
If I caught a whiff of half what you've said here I'd end the on-site early. My industry is too competitive to put up with this sort of childish antics.
If I caught a whiff of half what you've said here I'd end the on-site early. My industry is too competitive to put up with this sort of childish antics.
And the gate would be working as intended.
I'm quite certain you have good intent. Maybe you've had truly rude people interview you, they exist. Maybe you have worked with a lot of jerks who were rude. Maybe we just have different definitions of "judge".
The most generous take of my intent is ~ "this person really wants to avoid a dysfunctional work culture".
If you assume good intent, you'll face fewer problems in life. It's one of the few pieces of advice that actually work with few exceptions. If you catch a whiff of something, and it smells like bad intent, maybe forcing yourself to rethink it from another perspective will work.
I'm quite certain you have good intent. Maybe you've had truly rude people interview you, they exist. Maybe you have worked with a lot of jerks who were rude. Maybe we just have different definitions of "judge".
The most generous take of my intent is ~ "this person really wants to avoid a dysfunctional work culture".
If you assume good intent, you'll face fewer problems in life. It's one of the few pieces of advice that actually work with few exceptions. If you catch a whiff of something, and it smells like bad intent, maybe forcing yourself to rethink it from another perspective will work.
> It came across as pretty rude in that interview setting, though she probably was not intending to be so.
Right, probably wasn't meant to be rude. Not hard to imagine that she might have had a lunch conversation recently about Kotlin, or just finished reading a long HN thread about it, and that was the laughter.
But in general, yeah, we all need to be mindful in our language. The interviewer is under zero stress/tension during an interview, while the interviewee is on high alert.
Right, probably wasn't meant to be rude. Not hard to imagine that she might have had a lunch conversation recently about Kotlin, or just finished reading a long HN thread about it, and that was the laughter.
But in general, yeah, we all need to be mindful in our language. The interviewer is under zero stress/tension during an interview, while the interviewee is on high alert.
> Leetcode is systematically favoring candidates who have months of free time to memorize arbitrary logic puzzles
Finding people who are willing to spend months in order to get the job is one of the biggest reasons companies use leetcode.
Finding people who are willing to spend months in order to get the job is one of the biggest reasons companies use leetcode.
I just wish companies that didn't have the applicant pool of a FAANG company understood this. Leetcode for your average dev company is a great way to lose a massive portion of the qualified talent pool. I can guarantee almost every SaaS developer never touches dynamic programming beyond simple memoization, yet its tested so much. You might as well test a French Cuisine Chef on how well his Chinese cooking is.
> You might as well test a French Cuisine Chef on how well his Chinese cooking is.
A way more apt comparison would be evaluating him on his knive sharpening skills.
A way more apt comparison would be evaluating him on his knive sharpening skills.
As someone who has worked in professional kitchens, I can say that any professional chef that isn't comfortable sharpening their own knives isn't there because they love cooking. All of the ones I know take great pride in their knives.
A butcher can sharpen knives very well, but that doesn't mean they'll know how to cook. Same goes for a line cook, while a chef knows how to run a kitchen... sorry for being pedantic, but being good at grinding out Leetcode questions doesn't mean you'll be a good programmer. It'll mean you'll be good at answering Leetcode puzzles.
Not a professional chef but I'm a good cook. I try to bring my own knives when I travel to visit friends just in case someone asks me to cook, because most home kitchens have shit knives that are only good for spreading butter.
This is a dicey proposition when flying: Carry-on is not an option so I have to bring my B-grade knives that I won't miss if the airline loses them.
This is a dicey proposition when flying: Carry-on is not an option so I have to bring my B-grade knives that I won't miss if the airline loses them.
I got frustrated with terrible knives in a variety of Airbnbs but instead of bringing my own, I bought a portable sharpener. It generally makes even a pretty bad knife into something not so terrible to use for a couple days. And airport security doesn't care, even in carry-on.
Growing up, all my family used were small, cheap paring knives. As an adult I treated myself to a high quality set, and I try to keep them in good shape. It's taken a few years to fix my visiting in-laws' bad habits like running them through the dishwasher or cutting stuff on ceramic plates. At first they thought I was odd for calling them out on such things, but they're starting to come around and realize the quality of life improvement of being able to actually slice things. I'll bring my sharpening stone and oil when visiting them, and put an edge back on whatever random kitchen knives they have. I sharpened my sister-in-law's set and she almost chopped her fingers off cutting through a tomato because she was used to putting muscle into it. A month later she bought a whole new set of knives that have sharpeners built into the block. My mother-in-law now even brings her knives when she visits us just so I can sharpen them sooner!
Right on! I'm at an extended stay hotel right now for skiing/work, and good knives are one of the things I brought to stock the kitchen.
Rando, but question of genuine interest:
What keeps you from having a couple sets of A grade knives? Is it cost, or some other thing?
I'm asking because I have a few tools I LOVE. One is a set of dial calipers and I've had them since the 80's. I can get new ones, and have, but that tool I know well. My measurements are most repetable with it.
What keeps you from having a couple sets of A grade knives? Is it cost, or some other thing?
I'm asking because I have a few tools I LOVE. One is a set of dial calipers and I've had them since the 80's. I can get new ones, and have, but that tool I know well. My measurements are most repetable with it.
I bought my A-grade knives from a knifesmith in Kyoto. They're expensive and very difficult to replace. Nobody gets to touch those except me.
My B-grade knives are Shuns, which are still much better than 90% of the knives in a typical American kitchen but a bit more tolerant of abuse and available everywhere.
My B-grade knives are Shuns, which are still much better than 90% of the knives in a typical American kitchen but a bit more tolerant of abuse and available everywhere.
Oh, got it. Very special knives!
Thanks, that makes great sense.
Thanks, that makes great sense.
I think a more apt comparison would be to tell a classically trained English speaking chef to write out obscure recipes in French
The HN Law of Analogical Accuracy: for each attempt at an analogy, an attempt at a more accurate yet more abstract analogy exists in a reply.
If it continues long enough, so we eventually reach a point where the original situation is used as the analogy?
Hilarious. "... Okay, but this is more like if instead of on a cruise ship in Borneo, the monkey is a guy at an engineering interview who only has JavaScript on his resume, and the recruiter is making him implement linked lists in C."
It actually happened already, right down below:
> It'd be a bit like 'someone else has set up a software development environment for you, now write some code' I suppose.
> It'd be a bit like 'someone else has set up a software development environment for you, now write some code' I suppose.
It just goes round in circles for eternity; the never-ending search for the Aptest of Comparisons.
Err, no. Being able to sharpen one’s own knives is a basic skill that every professional chef learns early. Having a sharp knife isn’t an ego-driven showoff move, it’s critically important.
As someone who knows nothing about being a professional chef, it surprises me to discover that a professional chef wouldn't be very comfortable sharpening knives!
I would not trust somebody who calls themselves a professional chef if they couldn't sharpen a knife.
And if they couldn't sharpen a knife? Would you still trust them to cook a 5 course dinner?
Sure. Just like I trust race car drivers to drive even though they don't know how to fix the car. As long as they understand the basics of how the car parts interact, they'll be just fine driving it.
Good race car drivers actually know how car works and I bet can fix many things. Race car drivers take the car to the limit and understanding how car works is competitive advantage - they can help mechanics tune the car, can diagnose problems that show up only at high speed, understand pro/cons of different suspesions and how they work, etc.
On the other hand typical Uber driver does not need to know anything about the car other than what pedals are for and you turn the wheel to steer. If he tries to take the car to the limit, he probably gets 1 star rating from scared passenger. No need to know how car works.
You decide whether Google engineers are more like race car drivers or Uber drivers.
On the other hand typical Uber driver does not need to know anything about the car other than what pedals are for and you turn the wheel to steer. If he tries to take the car to the limit, he probably gets 1 star rating from scared passenger. No need to know how car works.
You decide whether Google engineers are more like race car drivers or Uber drivers.
But they probably don't have a MSc like lot of F1 mechanics do.
But in practice, a good one probably won't let anyone else sharpen their knives, nevermind be unable to do it.
It'd be a bit like 'someone else has set up a software development environment for you, now write some code' I suppose.
It'd be a bit like 'someone else has set up a software development environment for you, now write some code' I suppose.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I've never used Leetcode, but it keeps coming up here. I've been interviewer a lot lately and I keep trying to find ways to filter out the candidates that care more about interview prep than solving real problems.
Is this a nonstandard perspective?
Is this a nonstandard perspective?
I’ve been doing technical interviews for decades and have gotten good feedback from candidates about my technique. I have a small number of questions that are nearly impossible to have prepared for - one for instance is finding the median in a large dataset using map reduce. The question is open enough there’s a lot of solutions that are expensive, a lot that are dead ends, and one that’s pretty clever. The key is I let them investigate different possible solutions and give them guidance as they butt against expensive or impractical solutions and guide them to the answers I’ve heard over the years that work best. Because I ask the same questions over and over again I can tell how people treat the problem and try to solve it. But since it’s not a typical interview question no one is prepared to answer it off the cuff.
Ultimately my goal is to assess whether the candidate can understand the problem, understand dead ends when I point it out, understand how to pivot to another approach, and understand how to interpret hints in a positive direction. IMO these are the important skills for a professional problem solver working in a team.
I wouldn’t use automated screening tools. These tools select for irrelevant criteria in my opinion, and are mostly useful if as an interviewer you’re too lazy or too incompetent to formulate your own questions that tell you whether a person can solve problems and interact well in a group problem solving situation. But I’m an oldster so YMMV.
I wouldn’t use automated screening tools. These tools select for irrelevant criteria in my opinion, and are mostly useful if as an interviewer you’re too lazy or too incompetent to formulate your own questions that tell you whether a person can solve problems and interact well in a group problem solving situation. But I’m an oldster so YMMV.
I’ve experienced interviews that could be described this way. Nearly impossible problems where the interviewer hints at the right (or preferred) solution and I’m stuck doing a guessing game that’s highly unrepresentative of real life software engineering (since no one in actual work drops hints while holding back their knowledge unless they’re jerks). It’s a terrible experience.
I assume you do a much better job given your positive feedback, but it’s not something that every potential interviewer will replicate well if they try to follow your description.
I assume you do a much better job given your positive feedback, but it’s not something that every potential interviewer will replicate well if they try to follow your description.
I completely agree and see red flags in how the parent describes their interview technique.
Interview questions with one solution "that’s pretty clever" are IMO, bad. Even cliche "easy" fizzbuzz. Ok...so you know modulo.
Rationing out hints towards that "one weird trick" sounds slightly like a cat toying with a struggling mouse.
Interview questions with one solution "that’s pretty clever" are IMO, bad. Even cliche "easy" fizzbuzz. Ok...so you know modulo.
Rationing out hints towards that "one weird trick" sounds slightly like a cat toying with a struggling mouse.
It's typical experience for a competition.
I think it's pretty common at small to mid sized companies + startups. Your more "trendy" companies and your F500 companies do the type of Leetcode interview you hear everyone on HN complain about.
It typically looks like a 15 minute phone interview with HR, followed by a lengthy Leetcode/ take home exam (that's auto graded, no humans), a computer form where you input your school, GPA, and courses taken (seriously). All of this info gets turned into a number and then HR takes a sample of the top X and hands it to the hiring manager: "Here are the 'viable' candidates".
The hiring manager then has to (basically) interview the candidate themselves. Ensure they actually have the skills for the position, determine their interest in the role, etc. So this is probably what you're doing right now. Just imagine someone filtered a bunch of your resumes first.
Take with a grain of salt, but I have heard of some folks explicitly getting permission to do hiring outside of HR at said large companies. The kids they get out of undergrad and through HR's Leetcode process are apparently complete garbage. Don't understand C, pointers, memory, or Linux at all. Don't even know what files are.
It typically looks like a 15 minute phone interview with HR, followed by a lengthy Leetcode/ take home exam (that's auto graded, no humans), a computer form where you input your school, GPA, and courses taken (seriously). All of this info gets turned into a number and then HR takes a sample of the top X and hands it to the hiring manager: "Here are the 'viable' candidates".
The hiring manager then has to (basically) interview the candidate themselves. Ensure they actually have the skills for the position, determine their interest in the role, etc. So this is probably what you're doing right now. Just imagine someone filtered a bunch of your resumes first.
Take with a grain of salt, but I have heard of some folks explicitly getting permission to do hiring outside of HR at said large companies. The kids they get out of undergrad and through HR's Leetcode process are apparently complete garbage. Don't understand C, pointers, memory, or Linux at all. Don't even know what files are.
> Take with a grain of salt, but I have heard of some folks explicitly getting permission to do hiring outside of HR at said large companies. The kids they get out of undergrad and through HR's Leetcode process are apparently complete garbage. Don't understand C, pointers, memory, or Linux at all. Don't even know what files are.
I've done a lot of interviews, and I just accept that I need to explain what a byte is to the candidates. You'd think people with a programming background would know what they are, but it's not a hard concept, so whatever. I don't really care if they know how to open a file or what a byte is, I want to know if they can describe their output, and then write code that does what they said. And if they can write a loop with a loop in it without going off the rails. Bonus points if they can communicate reasonably throughout. You can teach someone how to use files, and unless you're a C shop, most people don't need to use that much C that they can't learn it when it comes up, if they need to. But it's hard to teach 'make a spec, follow the spec you made' and if you have to teach a programmer how to do nested loops, they aren't a programmer yet. (which is maybe fine, if you're interviewing someone who's only programming adjacent or something)
I've done a lot of interviews, and I just accept that I need to explain what a byte is to the candidates. You'd think people with a programming background would know what they are, but it's not a hard concept, so whatever. I don't really care if they know how to open a file or what a byte is, I want to know if they can describe their output, and then write code that does what they said. And if they can write a loop with a loop in it without going off the rails. Bonus points if they can communicate reasonably throughout. You can teach someone how to use files, and unless you're a C shop, most people don't need to use that much C that they can't learn it when it comes up, if they need to. But it's hard to teach 'make a spec, follow the spec you made' and if you have to teach a programmer how to do nested loops, they aren't a programmer yet. (which is maybe fine, if you're interviewing someone who's only programming adjacent or something)
to get around to the algorithmic portion of the interview process (filling out your GPA and hoping for a recruiter call), try reaching out to the recruiters directly. they only go to that pool when their existing leads runs dry, and they'd often love the opportunity to add some self motivated candidates.
How I got my job is I searched linkedIn for <company name> + recruiter and just added all of them. That alone generated lots of recruiter calls. This was 2018, not sure if things have changed
How I got my job is I searched linkedIn for <company name> + recruiter and just added all of them. That alone generated lots of recruiter calls. This was 2018, not sure if things have changed
Don't even know what files are
Which is of course exactly what these companies should expect if their idea of candidate "preparation" consists of sitting in front of a webform and being asked to type in functions, one after another.
Like a rat in a cage.
Which is of course exactly what these companies should expect if their idea of candidate "preparation" consists of sitting in front of a webform and being asked to type in functions, one after another.
Like a rat in a cage.
The stuff tested by a coding interview won't get to staff level or beyond. Cross functional understanding, product or technology insights, strategic thinking, etc. are necessary.
Lots of people who come up through the ranks only know how to do coding interviews - coding is what they do in their job, it was the interview they passed and it is what they know in depth. These are also the people confused about why their careers stall.
I never used coding for interviews at Google - even for junior engineers I wanted to see if they understood issues beyond their fingertips. Of course there was always a coding interview or two, so that base was covered.
Lots of people who come up through the ranks only know how to do coding interviews - coding is what they do in their job, it was the interview they passed and it is what they know in depth. These are also the people confused about why their careers stall.
I never used coding for interviews at Google - even for junior engineers I wanted to see if they understood issues beyond their fingertips. Of course there was always a coding interview or two, so that base was covered.
> I never used coding for interviews at Google
Can you explain? AFAIK Google has a set criteria for engineering interviews. 2-3 coding, 1 design, 1 something else. AFAIK if you get asked to do a coding interview you have to ask coding questions. The people who review your interview would not find it acceptable to not do it.
Can you explain? AFAIK Google has a set criteria for engineering interviews. 2-3 coding, 1 design, 1 something else. AFAIK if you get asked to do a coding interview you have to ask coding questions. The people who review your interview would not find it acceptable to not do it.
> Can you explain? AFAIK Google has a set criteria for engineering interviews. 2-3 coding, 1 design, 1 something else.
From the parent comment I guess they were the ones doing the design or ‘something else’ interview, with the coding interview or two being covered by someone else.
From the parent comment I guess they were the ones doing the design or ‘something else’ interview, with the coding interview or two being covered by someone else.
I think Leetcode is a pretty decent way to filter for people who work hard and have at least decent critical thinking skills. I guess FAANGs have concluded
1. it's easier to test for those qualities than it is to test for engineering skills
2. those are the qualities that make a good developer.
Leetcode is more about learning pattern recognition of the problem category than it is critical thinking.
What started off as "write a binary search" has turned into a massive gate-keeping process to try to select candidates who fit a profile. I'm not sure what that profile is, but I know I don't fit it. I grinded Leetcode for 2 months and failed Google, Facebook, and Amazon. I thought there was some luck involved and decided not to put any more time into it. But, I don't fault others who do.
I do think the large pay increases the candidate pool, so there has to be some form of testing. I just don't think as a senior developer, it assesses my skills.
What started off as "write a binary search" has turned into a massive gate-keeping process to try to select candidates who fit a profile. I'm not sure what that profile is, but I know I don't fit it. I grinded Leetcode for 2 months and failed Google, Facebook, and Amazon. I thought there was some luck involved and decided not to put any more time into it. But, I don't fault others who do.
I do think the large pay increases the candidate pool, so there has to be some form of testing. I just don't think as a senior developer, it assesses my skills.
Pattern recognition is critical thinking.
I don’t think it’s problems represent the problems we solve in the real world at all.
That's not the point though. Leetcode can't figure out if you're able to do the work today. I think FAANG believes it can figure out whether they'll be able to train you to do the work.
I view it as a way to apply a somewhat relevant filter to a large pool of candidates. It's something coding related with simple appeals such as scalability which makes every engineer quiver at the knees.
Candidates are taught by peers and previous experience what to expect in interviews. It wouldn't take more than 1 or 2 failed leetcode interviews for me to start spending significant time on 'em.
I don't know if it's fair to say the candidates care more about prep than solving real problems if they're just reacting to what at least some employers are expecting.
I don't know if it's fair to say the candidates care more about prep than solving real problems if they're just reacting to what at least some employers are expecting.
It depends on what kind of people you're trying to hire.
If you want button-pushers who will keep their heads down and do exactly what they're told, even if it doesn't make sense or is detrimental to the company, then leetcode is a good way to find those people.
If you want actual human beings who are able to think abstractly, critically, and contribute to the team and help the company grow, then look for people who have been working long enough to know that leetcode is a dead end.
If you want button-pushers who will keep their heads down and do exactly what they're told, even if it doesn't make sense or is detrimental to the company, then leetcode is a good way to find those people.
If you want actual human beings who are able to think abstractly, critically, and contribute to the team and help the company grow, then look for people who have been working long enough to know that leetcode is a dead end.
> If you want actual human beings who are able to think abstractly, critically, and contribute to the team and help the company grow, then look for people who have been working long enough to know that leetcode is a dead end.
I am very against Leetcode style interviews. I promise every candidate interviewed by the org I lead that they won't be asked academic CS trivia.
But, I don't think what you said here is accurate.
If it were true, these other companies where all the critical thinkers have been flocking to would have displaced the FAANGs.
There are good reasons to dislike Leetcode, but your comment reads like sour grapes to me.
I am very against Leetcode style interviews. I promise every candidate interviewed by the org I lead that they won't be asked academic CS trivia.
But, I don't think what you said here is accurate.
If it were true, these other companies where all the critical thinkers have been flocking to would have displaced the FAANGs.
There are good reasons to dislike Leetcode, but your comment reads like sour grapes to me.
Well, he did say:
> ego-driven hazing ritual
:-)
> ego-driven hazing ritual
:-)
The worst "Biggest Swingin' Dick on Campus" ego-fest I have ever experienced was working at the F in FAANG...
--
Such a den of.... you can fill in the rest...
I know someone who was literally fired for being "too social" -- and all they did was participate in the stupid parties that were had like "Build you're departments happy hour bar, here is $400 for alcohol to stock it up!!"
--
Such a den of.... you can fill in the rest...
I know someone who was literally fired for being "too social" -- and all they did was participate in the stupid parties that were had like "Build you're departments happy hour bar, here is $400 for alcohol to stock it up!!"
I had a few FAANG+M people join my (reserve) unit in the army doing cyber and 6-shop stuff who thought they were hot shit. Some actually were, but the mentality was universal regardless of ability.
I look back fondly on the internal wiki pages documenting all the available "bar space" in the Facebook Seattle office.
Finding hard workers isn't easy. Leetcode is not a bad way to do it. It's not a great way, but it works and more importantly it scales well to the organization level.
These candidates aren't exactly spending their lives to get hired at your place because they think you are special.
They just don't take their day jobs seriously enough and spend most of their time on LC, when you hire them, they leave in a few months because that is what they are good at.
They just don't take their day jobs seriously enough and spend most of their time on LC, when you hire them, they leave in a few months because that is what they are good at.
I agree, but for many people a six figure job writing code is life changing. So they are willing to study for it.
Interestingly, my partner just went through the interview process at both Amazon and Google. The Amazon process was horrendous, with an insulting “good cop/bad cop” series of interviews. It was a relief when they decided not to move forward as the process was enough to know they’d be horrible to work for. The Google process was great, productive, and generated excitement about working for them. In the end they offered the job but couldn’t make the compensation quite work. But they walked away on good terms.
My personal experience was almost the exact opposite (granted, this was in 2020, and things might have changed since then). Both companies asked leetcode-style questions and behavioral questions.
The Amazon interviewers were engaged, excited when talking about their work, and seemed like they were rooting for me to succeed.
Google interviewers were condescending and looked like they were unhappy to be part of the interview process and were just going through the motions because they were forced to. I had a lot of self-doubt after being treated like crap by the Google interview and decided to never do that to myself again.
The Amazon interviewers were engaged, excited when talking about their work, and seemed like they were rooting for me to succeed.
Google interviewers were condescending and looked like they were unhappy to be part of the interview process and were just going through the motions because they were forced to. I had a lot of self-doubt after being treated like crap by the Google interview and decided to never do that to myself again.
I'm pretty confident it's just luck of the draw. At both companies, giving interviews is an expectation for promotion, so many interviewers don't particularly want to be there and some are bad at hiding that fact.
Yeah, there is always a subjective factor involved in these interviews. You are just screwed if you meet an interviewer that doesn't like you personally for some reason and acts hostile.
Or maybe they are putting on an act to seem hostile to push your buttons.
Or maybe they are putting on an act to seem hostile to push your buttons.
> My biggest gripe is that Leetcode is systematically favoring candidates who have months of free time to memorize arbitrary logic puzzles.
For me, leetcode is basically just what is taught at university level. So they're hiring people based on if they know stuff they would learn and forget from university.
The thing is, it's not about having free time, it's about being so dedicated to getting the job that you'll spend ages learning things you would never do during your day job and if you did do them during your day job you would be considered a cowboy because there are predefined libraries that are optimised to do those things.
For me, the main reason I don't want to work for FAANG is they have a reputation for long hours and that the hardest thing at the companies is the interview process.
For me, leetcode is basically just what is taught at university level. So they're hiring people based on if they know stuff they would learn and forget from university.
The thing is, it's not about having free time, it's about being so dedicated to getting the job that you'll spend ages learning things you would never do during your day job and if you did do them during your day job you would be considered a cowboy because there are predefined libraries that are optimised to do those things.
For me, the main reason I don't want to work for FAANG is they have a reputation for long hours and that the hardest thing at the companies is the interview process.
So when it gets to the part of the interview where they ask you if you have questions for them: "When and where has anyone here ever needed to use this code for this job? I want to meet that team". Silence and crickets would be the appropriate response, but you'll receive a word salad avalanche instead.
Why would they? The point of the question is to see your thinking / problem solving process.
It's like asking why you should write a resume when you won't resumes as part of your job. It serves a similar purpose of trying to get to know who you are.
It's like asking why you should write a resume when you won't resumes as part of your job. It serves a similar purpose of trying to get to know who you are.
If they are judging your response as pass/fail vs partial credit for showing work, then you're screwed. I'd be doubtful that partial credit is given as showing your critical thinking ability is present.
> For me, the main reason I don't want to work for FAANG is they have a reputation for long hours
I thought working at Google or Facebook was supposed to be a pretty chill "rest and vest" situation, esp at the former (?)
I thought working at Google or Facebook was supposed to be a pretty chill "rest and vest" situation, esp at the former (?)
My understanding (at least where Google is concerned) is that it's a jungle situation and there's a lot of team-hopping and connection-making until you find a place to land for awhile. That may be where R&V comes into the picture, maybe some people are able to negotiate a less stressful First Act, and possibly most likely, maybe my understanding is out of date.
Remember, with the kinds of education people have at these companies coupled with the amounts of money they are receiving, "the bullied become the bullies" is a serious occupational hazard.
Remember, with the kinds of education people have at these companies coupled with the amounts of money they are receiving, "the bullied become the bullies" is a serious occupational hazard.
> My understanding (at least where Google is concerned) is that it's a jungle situation and there's a lot of team-hopping and connection-making until you find a place to land for awhile.
I think this is only true if you want to work on something interesting. If you're willing to work in some obscure corner of ad infrastructure or Google Surveys or something and you're not trying to get promoted, you can stick around for a long time at Google and not get much done. At a big organization like Google the pace is pretty slow even if you are trying to get some work accomplished, so that provides cover for those who aren't as effective.
I think this is only true if you want to work on something interesting. If you're willing to work in some obscure corner of ad infrastructure or Google Surveys or something and you're not trying to get promoted, you can stick around for a long time at Google and not get much done. At a big organization like Google the pace is pretty slow even if you are trying to get some work accomplished, so that provides cover for those who aren't as effective.
>I think this is only true if you want to work on something interesting.
Ha ha, fair enough!
Ha ha, fair enough!
YMMV. From what I hear from my Googler friends, It's all about the team/manager/project you land.
Usually a good manager can spot pitfall projects from a mile away and put you on a good path to a promotion. But only being good is not enough, you have to work on the right projects, have the right results and the right visibility. If those variables are not there you may go through a downward spiral that ends up in a PIP.
Usually a good manager can spot pitfall projects from a mile away and put you on a good path to a promotion. But only being good is not enough, you have to work on the right projects, have the right results and the right visibility. If those variables are not there you may go through a downward spiral that ends up in a PIP.
My experience is that it can be pretty chill if you're happy with your level, but if you're going for a promo you need to work super hard
You are misinformed if you think Facebook is a rest and vest company. Google and Microsoft maybe.
Anecdotally, LC interviews are hardest when you're mid-career and get easier over time. As the main difference between a junior engineer and a mid/senior engineer is whether they can work autonomously, and an engineer with 3 years of experience rarely has good datapoints for invention/difficult projects. The only way companies have found to differentiate a strong hire from a no hire is by asking harder leetcode questions and expecting perfection.
As you get to more senior levels it seems like companies still expect you to do passably well on those questions - but make their decision based on other data-points such as impact/past projects etc.
As you get to more senior levels it seems like companies still expect you to do passably well on those questions - but make their decision based on other data-points such as impact/past projects etc.
> The interviewer laughed at my code, and then after going through the logic said "Wow I can't believe this actually works."
OK, not professional, and fair grounds for deciding you don't want to work there (interviews are as much for you to evaluate the employer as they are for the employer to evaluate you) but.... have a bit of a thicker skin. Carrying something like that for 15 years instead of immediately dismissing it as the commentary of an asshole is just no way to go through life.
OK, not professional, and fair grounds for deciding you don't want to work there (interviews are as much for you to evaluate the employer as they are for the employer to evaluate you) but.... have a bit of a thicker skin. Carrying something like that for 15 years instead of immediately dismissing it as the commentary of an asshole is just no way to go through life.
If it were just 1 or 2 assholes, years apart, it would bounce off your skin.
But the integral of having to deal with these assholes over the years (both in the hiring process, and when you start to actually work there) -- meanwhile having a real life to be responsible for (family, kids) -- can start to wear you down, after a while.
But the integral of having to deal with these assholes over the years (both in the hiring process, and when you start to actually work there) -- meanwhile having a real life to be responsible for (family, kids) -- can start to wear you down, after a while.
[deleted]
I had a similar experience in a college physics class. I was reviewing my solution to a problem (maybe angular momentum?) with the TA, and they said, “I know you got the right answer, but I don’t see how I can give you credit for this when I don’t understand your solution.”
And I replied, “Is it even remotely possible I came up with the correct answer by chance?” They agreed not. “Then why should it be my problem that you can’t understand my method?”
In retrospect I was an ass, but I got credit and passed the class, so…
And I replied, “Is it even remotely possible I came up with the correct answer by chance?” They agreed not. “Then why should it be my problem that you can’t understand my method?”
In retrospect I was an ass, but I got credit and passed the class, so…
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
> It makes me sad for the less privileged candidates who might be working a job while also trying to break into the IT field.
Very good point. I didn't really think about it much before. It is even difficult for candidates who are in IT field but not in FAANG type companies.
Very good point. I didn't really think about it much before. It is even difficult for candidates who are in IT field but not in FAANG type companies.
Now imagine if instead of coding exercises we had the interview process from other industries that weighs degree and past experience more heavily in the absence of any other sort of testing. What would it look like to break in then? Completing a BS in your spare time?
EDIT: Most ideas I've seen about replacement for live coding - like take home projects or contract-to-hire - are not really any more friendly to people with busy schedules anyway.
EDIT: Most ideas I've seen about replacement for live coding - like take home projects or contract-to-hire - are not really any more friendly to people with busy schedules anyway.
The craziest part of tech interviews for me is the way its just accepted that you do it this way regardless of how long someone has been in the industry.
If companies were grilling people new to the career trying to figure out if they could FizzBuzz their way out of wet paper bag (I realize some can't) it would be one thing. Without a track record you don't have much to go on, but the fact that you can work in the industry for decades, ship well-received products people have heard of, have a long list of references willing to verify that you were instrumental in shipping those products, and a lot of companies still expect you to jump through "reverse this string in place" type code puzzles seems kinda bonkers to me... but a lot of the industry just accepts that This Is The Way.
You can bypass this with direct personal connections of course, but its weird to me that so many companies put effectively 0 weight into prior easy to verify accomplishments if the people looking to hire don't know the person on a personal level.
If companies were grilling people new to the career trying to figure out if they could FizzBuzz their way out of wet paper bag (I realize some can't) it would be one thing. Without a track record you don't have much to go on, but the fact that you can work in the industry for decades, ship well-received products people have heard of, have a long list of references willing to verify that you were instrumental in shipping those products, and a lot of companies still expect you to jump through "reverse this string in place" type code puzzles seems kinda bonkers to me... but a lot of the industry just accepts that This Is The Way.
You can bypass this with direct personal connections of course, but its weird to me that so many companies put effectively 0 weight into prior easy to verify accomplishments if the people looking to hire don't know the person on a personal level.
I don't think that FizzBuzz/similar gotcha-type questions like that are useful, especially since most of them are all over interview prep sites, so I don't use them. But I've definitely interviewed people with impressive-looking resumes who straightforwardly didn't seem to be able to code; they couldn't respond to simple questions ("You mentioned you used Language Y in this project; what do you like and dislike about that language?") or were clearly bullshitting their responses. I've felt insulted at times when I get FizzBuzz in an interview, but I kinda get it.
All that said, this is a systematic issue that gets blamed on individual interviewers when the blame should fall on the company. I'm a decade into my career, worked at companies of all sizes, and I've never had or heard of anyone getting trained in interviewing. Outside of informal efforts with coworkers, I've never had a job provide me with a rubric for what I should be interviewing for (shit, I usually find out I'm interviewing someone day-of or day-before). If companies gave a damn about interviewing, I think the process wouldn't be so slapdash, and fewer interviewers would fall back on crap like FizzBuzz.
All that said, this is a systematic issue that gets blamed on individual interviewers when the blame should fall on the company. I'm a decade into my career, worked at companies of all sizes, and I've never had or heard of anyone getting trained in interviewing. Outside of informal efforts with coworkers, I've never had a job provide me with a rubric for what I should be interviewing for (shit, I usually find out I'm interviewing someone day-of or day-before). If companies gave a damn about interviewing, I think the process wouldn't be so slapdash, and fewer interviewers would fall back on crap like FizzBuzz.
I've done a fair amount of startup interviewing, and my biggest takeaway was that I had no ability to discern if someone's resume on its own was fluff or real. And often, there seemed to be an inverse correlation between how impressive someone sounded and their actual technical abilities. It's possible I'm just missing some techniques or judgement but I don't think so.
My experience is that generally you can't bypass leetcode interviews via networking.
At most, you might be allowed to skip the phone screen. Or you might be given slightly more leeway in getting the solution.
There are exceptions of course. One close friend/ex-colleague has an uncanny ability to network himself into a coding job at various NYC hedge funds. These being hedge funds, they all pay at least above average (we're not talking about Citadel or Jane Street here), but the downside is that he has to be very unpicky about what the role exactly entails. So this can lead him to very unsexy jobs like shuffling XML feed files back and forth or doing MS Access/Excel VBA stuff, etc. But he can snap his fingers, make a few phone calls to executives and managers he knows at multiple mid tier hedge funds, and start working in a matter of days.
At most, you might be allowed to skip the phone screen. Or you might be given slightly more leeway in getting the solution.
There are exceptions of course. One close friend/ex-colleague has an uncanny ability to network himself into a coding job at various NYC hedge funds. These being hedge funds, they all pay at least above average (we're not talking about Citadel or Jane Street here), but the downside is that he has to be very unpicky about what the role exactly entails. So this can lead him to very unsexy jobs like shuffling XML feed files back and forth or doing MS Access/Excel VBA stuff, etc. But he can snap his fingers, make a few phone calls to executives and managers he knows at multiple mid tier hedge funds, and start working in a matter of days.
Only for those that are stuck getting a job as soon as possible and cannot afford to say no.
Otherwise there are plenty of companies that haven't fall into leetcode cargo cult.
Otherwise there are plenty of companies that haven't fall into leetcode cargo cult.
Is “reverse this string in place” really a puzzle to you? Seems like a straightforward and realistic (for low level programmers) exercise.
Or how impressive their GitHub is.
Or another mostly (rightfully so IMO) choice you see here. Set a low bar to hiring but have a probationary period after which you fire a notable percentage.
Or another mostly (rightfully so IMO) choice you see here. Set a low bar to hiring but have a probationary period after which you fire a notable percentage.
I agree with your second sentence. Your first is much less of a thing for people like me. Sure, an impressive github is...impressive. However, I have never posted anything publicly to github, so my existence would look sparse which is also the same description for my social profile. I just don't use github for side hustle type of projects.
I have a decent amount of commits to my Github, but it's to 98% private projects. Things that may become products someday. Don't have a whole lot to show potential employers. My day jobs have always been private or onprem repos.
Yeah probationary period would be great for companies, maybe better for people trying to break into industry (unless they can't fired and can't get their old job back), and not so good for most people already in the industry.
From looking at job postings, there's no shortage of jobs for people already in the industry, and a proportionally much lower number of positions for entry-level. Every company has open positions for seniors, but no one wants to train them up.
I think this is mainly a side effect of the kind of work being performed at companies has leaned over the decades towards an increasingly bimodal skills distribution, and the entry level work's sophistication is eroding from advances in automation and continuous improvement feedback loops.
For example, I see at all of my clients entry level help desk positions to do things like help with provisioning a new employee's Wintel laptop, answer internal software packaging problems, intake VPN trouble reports, that sort of activity. But not nearly as much as when I entered the industry, because so much has been automated away or folded into centralized management systems, and the trend continues with advances in desktop engineering. On the other hand, I see an explosion of demand for the desktop engineering team positions.
This is being reflected in many other IT areas as far as I can tell. There is a constant push these days at all my clients to automate all repetitive work, and a much bigger appetite from leadership to automate entry level work even when the ROI payoff is longer than 1-4 fiscal quarters than when I started. The push isn't due to direct labor savings though: it is to drive down variance of configurations exposed to the more senior and expensive roles, so the real high-payoff automation can really shine, and they can reduce business-as-usual work hours remediating the impact from those variances.
For example, I see at all of my clients entry level help desk positions to do things like help with provisioning a new employee's Wintel laptop, answer internal software packaging problems, intake VPN trouble reports, that sort of activity. But not nearly as much as when I entered the industry, because so much has been automated away or folded into centralized management systems, and the trend continues with advances in desktop engineering. On the other hand, I see an explosion of demand for the desktop engineering team positions.
This is being reflected in many other IT areas as far as I can tell. There is a constant push these days at all my clients to automate all repetitive work, and a much bigger appetite from leadership to automate entry level work even when the ROI payoff is longer than 1-4 fiscal quarters than when I started. The push isn't due to direct labor savings though: it is to drive down variance of configurations exposed to the more senior and expensive roles, so the real high-payoff automation can really shine, and they can reduce business-as-usual work hours remediating the impact from those variances.
You still have to decide who gets the probationary period and who doesn't. To figure that out you still have to do interviews and filter. Probationary periods don't solve anything except it makes it easier to fire people before the end is over.
Firing people is not exactly hard in the USA.
It's perhaps not hard but the expectation if you take a new job is that you won't be randomly fired in a few months because you don't meet some unstated high bar.
Every new hire has a probationary period to it. If you go into a new job thinking you'll make it past 6 months automatically, then that's a big assumption. While it shouldn't be hard to just do your job and get past the probation period, it's hard to know if the company didn't just hire a bunch of people to get past a crunch without an intention of keeping them.
I think take-home projects might take the same amount of time as leetcode, when you count studying, but are much less stressful. As long as enough time is given.
This really doesn't fix the problem of breaking into CS, and it's not even practical when there are too many candidates. Leetcode gives a gigantic number of false negatives, but that's a price companies are willing to pay.
This really doesn't fix the problem of breaking into CS, and it's not even practical when there are too many candidates. Leetcode gives a gigantic number of false negatives, but that's a price companies are willing to pay.
I don't agree. I much prefer to spend one hour doing a live coding interview than spending 24h working on a test. It is much more time spent, and therefore more stressful.
If you can ace a 1 hour coding interview without any preparation then more power to you! But many of us have to spend months doing practice problems to perform well in that 1 hour interview. I’ve heard many stories of people doing hundreds of practice problems to pass these kinds of interviews.
I’d much rather dedicate a weekend to solve a take home challenge using technologies I already know than dedicate many months to learn a set of algorithms I would rarely use.
I’d much rather dedicate a weekend to solve a take home challenge using technologies I already know than dedicate many months to learn a set of algorithms I would rarely use.
I make a point of never doing "projects" during a recruitment process. The fact is that there are too many good opportunities out there that will not require me two spend a full day or even several days in a week to complete a job application, without compensation. Whenever I hear that there is a "project" to complete, I just tell them that I already have tons of projects to work on and pass the "opportunity".
Depends on how motivated you are to to your current job. On two occasions I've witnessed a fellow developer mentally check themselves out after a round of layoffs, start doing the minimal amount of work necessary, and then spending the rest of their time cracking coding problems. When the next round of layoffs came, they were gone to Amazon and Google.
Where are they now?
Sorry if I was a bit ambiguous. They are at Amazon and Google now. The point is treat your staff well or they might spend their time between tasks prepping for a FAANG interview.
> I've come to think that the Leetcode interview style has morphed from a "let's see how you handle problems at scale" test into an ego-driven hazing ritual.
I'm 48 and I've been a software developer a long time. The technical interview at many companies has been an ego-driven hazing ritual my entire career, well before Leetcode even existed.
I'm 48 and I've been a software developer a long time. The technical interview at many companies has been an ego-driven hazing ritual my entire career, well before Leetcode even existed.
Yeah my entire experience could be summed up by saying everyone who sat across the table from me that day (with one exception, one person was super nice), was trying to prove that I was too dumb to work among the likes of them.
This was in 2004 though so maybe that has changed but it certainly stuck with me.
This was in 2004 though so maybe that has changed but it certainly stuck with me.
> ...an ego-driven hazing ritual.
Google India (c. late 2000s / early 2010s) used to be notorious for this, so much so that Googlers I knew would rather have their referrals give interviews at Google HQ (MTV), instead (not that it was any better, but rather it wasn't as worse).
One piece of advice I received early on was, interviews aren't meant to be a pissing contest but often are. As an interviewee, accept that and try not to take rejections personally (easier said than done). As an interviewer, know that you're in a position of power, and try not to abuse it (easily done but never said).
Google India (c. late 2000s / early 2010s) used to be notorious for this, so much so that Googlers I knew would rather have their referrals give interviews at Google HQ (MTV), instead (not that it was any better, but rather it wasn't as worse).
One piece of advice I received early on was, interviews aren't meant to be a pissing contest but often are. As an interviewee, accept that and try not to take rejections personally (easier said than done). As an interviewer, know that you're in a position of power, and try not to abuse it (easily done but never said).
[deleted]
At least you had an interviewer who could speak English and explained the problem. Mine had an interviewer who just typed the problem and his English was so bad that I couldn’t get answers to any follow up questions. He kept saying “ok…ok” as I was explaining the approach and once I finished coding up my approach he said that’s not what he is looking for. I kept asking clarifying questions till the end but never got the answer since his English was incomprehensible. I don’t understand how a person like this can function assuming they have to deal with English speaking team members.
I had the same issue in an Amazon interview in 2020. Couldn’t understand the interviewer’s extremely strong accent so I had to keep asking him to repeat himself. I never really understood the question he was asking. Not the best experience.
But, I did work for Amazon several years before and that was mostly a good experience. So, luck of the draw, depending on which manager/team you get assigned to.
But, I did work for Amazon several years before and that was mostly a good experience. So, luck of the draw, depending on which manager/team you get assigned to.
> My biggest gripe is that Leetcode is systematically favoring candidates who have months of free time to […]
Wouldn’t this be true of almost any other selective interview process?
Wouldn’t this be true of almost any other selective interview process?
Nope. My wife just makes sure she knows where her physical portfolio is (basically just print-outs of old proposals she's worked on), spends a couple hours reading up about the company and maybe rehearsing what answers she might give to some common behavioral questions (the cliche ones, like "What's your biggest weakness" type crap), gets her clothes ready, and makes sure she gets enough sleep. This is the night before, usually.
I've never seen her spend more than a day or two preparing for an interview. And she gets paid near the top of her position, and has worked on dozens of multi-million dollar proposals.
The only reason it takes her a while to find a job is there's not a ton of positions that are willing to pay her what she's worth now (she's gone through job interview processes only to be given an offer half of the bottom of the range she provided multiple times), and she usually has to try to sell them on what she can provide to the team that they weren't even looking for (but should have been). Doesn't always work, obviously. Budgets aren't always there.
Meanwhile I've spend 2+ weeks or more preparing (hours each day) for SV interviews and still failed them. In Facebook's case, I was asked three questions by an HR person and gave the right answer to the third question, just not the term they must have had written down for them on the paper, was told I was wrong, and then got a rejection email. At Zynga I was asked to come up with and speak the code to a permutation algorithm, over the phone, on the spot, without using a computer. At Google, in one of the six interviews, I was asked how to convert a 3D grid of buildings into a 2D skyline with a single line, and I had difficulty figuring out the logic for overlapping buildings in less than 30 minutes using only a whiteboard.
I always spend at least 2-4 weeks refreshing algorithms and technical trivia questions before I even start looking for a job in tech.
I've never seen her spend more than a day or two preparing for an interview. And she gets paid near the top of her position, and has worked on dozens of multi-million dollar proposals.
The only reason it takes her a while to find a job is there's not a ton of positions that are willing to pay her what she's worth now (she's gone through job interview processes only to be given an offer half of the bottom of the range she provided multiple times), and she usually has to try to sell them on what she can provide to the team that they weren't even looking for (but should have been). Doesn't always work, obviously. Budgets aren't always there.
Meanwhile I've spend 2+ weeks or more preparing (hours each day) for SV interviews and still failed them. In Facebook's case, I was asked three questions by an HR person and gave the right answer to the third question, just not the term they must have had written down for them on the paper, was told I was wrong, and then got a rejection email. At Zynga I was asked to come up with and speak the code to a permutation algorithm, over the phone, on the spot, without using a computer. At Google, in one of the six interviews, I was asked how to convert a 3D grid of buildings into a 2D skyline with a single line, and I had difficulty figuring out the logic for overlapping buildings in less than 30 minutes using only a whiteboard.
I always spend at least 2-4 weeks refreshing algorithms and technical trivia questions before I even start looking for a job in tech.
OK I'm curious, this is computer graphics crap like z-buffers (I would probably say form a binary space partition tree, color all the polygons one color and a default background as black, rasterize the view, and then trace the outline)?
Or is this some trick?
Or is this some trick?
I didn't figure it out in time and he didn't elaborate, just sat there and watched me flounder, so I don't know for sure. This was way back in 2012 too, so I don't remember the details of what he asked super well.
I was under the impression he was wanting me to figure out how to do it using only the bounds of the rectangles mathematically, and not by changing how it rendered, from what I can remember.
I was under the impression he was wanting me to figure out how to do it using only the bounds of the rectangles mathematically, and not by changing how it rendered, from what I can remember.
A 3d map of a city is a bunch of polygons. A skyline is a perspective on that 3d model, so you need occlusion/etc. The single line is then a postprocess on that view of the skyline.
Maybe there's some 2.5D cheats like DOOM did since the 3d model is all on one plane.
Agreed, a ridiculous question.
These questions where you either know the algorithms of giants, or are expected to reverse-engineer algorithms that people did research on for months or years... The height of arrogance.
Maybe there's some 2.5D cheats like DOOM did since the 3d model is all on one plane.
Agreed, a ridiculous question.
These questions where you either know the algorithms of giants, or are expected to reverse-engineer algorithms that people did research on for months or years... The height of arrogance.
What is your wife’s occupation?
Proposal/Marketing Manager, but she often does things outside of her official job description as well.
No. An interview process can be very selective without really requiring prep beyond studying up on the company somewhat--and maybe not really even that to the degree you're already familiar with the company.
Not a developer (though was an engineer) but I've never studied for an interview beyond maybe spending an evening reading up on a company. But, to be honest, the (few) jobs I've had over the past 20 years or so have always come through knowing people.
Not a developer (though was an engineer) but I've never studied for an interview beyond maybe spending an evening reading up on a company. But, to be honest, the (few) jobs I've had over the past 20 years or so have always come through knowing people.
Some people use algorithms daily, or went to school for them, and don’t need to study for leetcode. Likewise, some people do architecture or frontend apps all day and don’t need to study for those. No matter what a company asks, some people will find it unreasonable, at the end of the day the charitable interpretation is that the company is choosing interview challenges that they feel are a proxy for the skills needed to succeed.
You're assuming that a company has to interview all candidates the same way regardless of what job they're actually interviewing for. A frequent complaint, voiced all over this thread, is that interviewing like that makes no sense. If the job uses 100-level algos all the time, then sure, let's talk algos (also, kinda weird, but I'm sure there's something out there like this). But if you're bringing me in as an SRE and we spend a bunch of time on LC questions and much less time on my experience with AWS, Terraform, and CI/CD work, the interview is bad for me (because I don't work with low-level algos and probably won't know that stuff, _unless_ I've been grinding LC) and bad for you (because you don't have much signal about whether I can do the SRE stuff).
I’m not assuming that.
I’m just suggesting some companies may want SREs who understand fundamental computer science and are able to apply it to novel problems, perhaps as a proxy for finding candidates who could create their own terraform or quickly learn whatever tool may supplant terraform in the future.
As an analogy, it’s valuable to hire an electrician who knows the whole electric code really well, even though your project may seemingly only require a subset of that knowledge. For example it’s not obvious adding an outlet could require rewiring the whole circuit and upgrading the panel to meet code.
Symmetrically, as you point out, one may find value in hiring a less expensive handyman to do their basic wiring, if you’re confident you just need a dimmer switch installed.
I’m just suggesting some companies may want SREs who understand fundamental computer science and are able to apply it to novel problems, perhaps as a proxy for finding candidates who could create their own terraform or quickly learn whatever tool may supplant terraform in the future.
As an analogy, it’s valuable to hire an electrician who knows the whole electric code really well, even though your project may seemingly only require a subset of that knowledge. For example it’s not obvious adding an outlet could require rewiring the whole circuit and upgrading the panel to meet code.
Symmetrically, as you point out, one may find value in hiring a less expensive handyman to do their basic wiring, if you’re confident you just need a dimmer switch installed.
Well, as a contractor/consultant it’s such a waste of time when a company flips the Codility card. I simply walk away, it’s not worth the effort for a 6mo-1yr gig.
Or even people currently in programming jobs doing real world code all day instead of hand jamming some contrived leet code algorithm fiction that will never be allowed to enter production.
More realistic is to talk through a process that can be sporadically described in various 1-3 line code samples that will eventually be put together to form a program for something boring. A good boring example is something like transmit a file from a file system across a network and perform an integrity check. Boring but enough steps to talk through and demonstrate with a couple instructions. Nobody does this. I would hear a discussion on proper use of APIs and step by step walk towards success than see somebody lost writing for loops and conditions.
More realistic is to talk through a process that can be sporadically described in various 1-3 line code samples that will eventually be put together to form a program for something boring. A good boring example is something like transmit a file from a file system across a network and perform an integrity check. Boring but enough steps to talk through and demonstrate with a couple instructions. Nobody does this. I would hear a discussion on proper use of APIs and step by step walk towards success than see somebody lost writing for loops and conditions.
I would love to know how long the average FANG dev spent on leetcode practice before their interviews. From my small sample of friends who've done stints there, it's far less than "months". I similarly have had - but declined - an offer from one of them with prep measured in "hours" not "days."
Survivor bias alert: These people have all passed the interviews.
I wonder if this is an intended side-effect, namely also filtering out people who would have passed if only they did rote memorization instead of actually mastering the CS fundamentals.
I wonder if this is an intended side-effect, namely also filtering out people who would have passed if only they did rote memorization instead of actually mastering the CS fundamentals.
I probably spent a month and a half studying most days for it (including reading my old data structures and algorithms books). It's the first time in my career I actually tried to prepare for a LC-style interview, and tbh it really wasn't bad. I also had a good experience and am still in the position, so YMMV.
[deleted]
How did you get so good? Would love any tips
There is nothing worse than being laughed at in an interview.
> Leetcode is systematically favoring candidates who have months of free time to memorize arbitrary logic puzzles
I agree to some extent but moreso, I think it heavily favours those with a theoretical CS background, which means effectively you are favouring candidates from top colleges in a round about way.
I agree to some extent but moreso, I think it heavily favours those with a theoretical CS background, which means effectively you are favouring candidates from top colleges in a round about way.
I honestly don't believe it has anything to do with the college level.
No offense, but you study python, learn its basic syntax + "algorithm design" book + 1 practical book about algorithms and data structures and you're good enough for performing good/optimal leetcodes.
Some things you might miss, for example some exercises you can optimize better if you know some algebra/maths, but 90% of that stuff is more or less repetitive. Once you learn the tricks etc, it really becomes repetitive because finally it's just if/else and for loops. (I don't mean to minimize in any way the effort it takes to make such exercises, it's just the feeling I had while doing some and failing a lot of them).
It's always about specializing one or two specific algorithms you have found in the book[s]. Sometimes it requires coming up with very creative ideas - better for loops. :)
For me Leetcodes are not per se bad. I still learnt something from "being forced" to do them which I probably wouldn't have done if i hadn't been forced. What I despise is the fact that companies have lost accountability in hiring. It's hard to interview, so it's better to rely on an "industry standard" - after all Amazon and Google do the same, so why shouldn't we?
No offense, but you study python, learn its basic syntax + "algorithm design" book + 1 practical book about algorithms and data structures and you're good enough for performing good/optimal leetcodes.
Some things you might miss, for example some exercises you can optimize better if you know some algebra/maths, but 90% of that stuff is more or less repetitive. Once you learn the tricks etc, it really becomes repetitive because finally it's just if/else and for loops. (I don't mean to minimize in any way the effort it takes to make such exercises, it's just the feeling I had while doing some and failing a lot of them).
It's always about specializing one or two specific algorithms you have found in the book[s]. Sometimes it requires coming up with very creative ideas - better for loops. :)
For me Leetcodes are not per se bad. I still learnt something from "being forced" to do them which I probably wouldn't have done if i hadn't been forced. What I despise is the fact that companies have lost accountability in hiring. It's hard to interview, so it's better to rely on an "industry standard" - after all Amazon and Google do the same, so why shouldn't we?
right, but it's way easier to get into if you did multiple semesters of it in college. You probably won't even need the textbook, just glance at a few articles on wikipedia/google and it'll all come back.
>an ego-driven hazing ritual
Last time I did an interview where this wasn't the case was 1998. Granted I don't really interview anymore.
Last time I did an interview where this wasn't the case was 1998. Granted I don't really interview anymore.
I've never had an interview like this. Get out of SV if you don't want to play those games.
Except, plenty of wannabe IT departments that want to “hire then best of breed” and start copycatting/aping these gestures. It’s a global Cargo Cult
This was in a mid-sized town. The main guy who was hazing was only mid-level talented, and was very insecure about it. On the other side of the table, I've never seen someone who I considered a high-level talent act that way. They may have tough questions but they certainly aren't pricks about it.
This was a long time ago, I get work through my network now, interviews consist of going to lunch and shooting the shit.
This was a long time ago, I get work through my network now, interviews consist of going to lunch and shooting the shit.
> "let's see how you handle problems at scale" test into an ego-driven hazing ritual
Don't hold it against your colleagues. A lot of this knowledge isn't obvious to anyone and people chiding people for not knowing would be the last to come up with solutions themselves. This is just insecurity and bickering.
Google has been a publicly traded company with a massive scale. If the technical problems aren't interesting to you, I doubt it is worth it to work there. The culture of such companies are always the same. Detached to minimize problems, don't make personal problem a problem of the company. Good colleagues can make you forget this for a while of course.
Don't hold it against your colleagues. A lot of this knowledge isn't obvious to anyone and people chiding people for not knowing would be the last to come up with solutions themselves. This is just insecurity and bickering.
Google has been a publicly traded company with a massive scale. If the technical problems aren't interesting to you, I doubt it is worth it to work there. The culture of such companies are always the same. Detached to minimize problems, don't make personal problem a problem of the company. Good colleagues can make you forget this for a while of course.
> The interviewer laughed at my code, and then after going through the logic said "Wow I can't believe this actually works."
It’s fine. I’ve seen code from FAANGs that evoked the same reaction from me.
It’s fine. I’ve seen code from FAANGs that evoked the same reaction from me.
[deleted]
> The interviewer laughed at my code, and then after going through the logic said "Wow I can't believe this actually works."
Is it possible you had a better solution that the interviewer simply didn't recognize?
Is it possible you had a better solution that the interviewer simply didn't recognize?
This isn't a new interview style. I interviewed with Microsoft in 1997 and encountered the haughtiest person I've ever met.
My biggest gripe is that medical associations are systematically favoring candidates who have years of free time to memorize arbitrary organ names. It makes me sad for the less privileged candidates who might be working a job while also trying to break into the surgeon field.
That interviewer behavior is borderline abusive.
> I've never seen him so happy.
I've shared about how I was forced into early retirement, in 2017. I had tried getting another job, after leaving my company, but no one would even talk to me (I won't go into why).
It absolutely infuriated me. It was humiliating and scary. I decided that I didn't really need to be patronized and insulted anymore, and just gave up.
But I was quite able to stand on my own. I didn't need the money; just the work.
After over four years of working (harder than I ever did, as a corporate shill) for a nonprofit (and learning new stuff), I can't see myself ever going back to the rat race.
I've shared about how I was forced into early retirement, in 2017. I had tried getting another job, after leaving my company, but no one would even talk to me (I won't go into why).
It absolutely infuriated me. It was humiliating and scary. I decided that I didn't really need to be patronized and insulted anymore, and just gave up.
But I was quite able to stand on my own. I didn't need the money; just the work.
After over four years of working (harder than I ever did, as a corporate shill) for a nonprofit (and learning new stuff), I can't see myself ever going back to the rat race.
> asking a person who has no clue what they are doing to deliver critical work
... as fast as possible, whether it actually works in all cases or not. As Dilbert says "our boss can't judge the quality of our work, but he knows when it's late".
... as fast as possible, whether it actually works in all cases or not. As Dilbert says "our boss can't judge the quality of our work, but he knows when it's late".
>he came back from parental leave and his direct reports had all been put on a PIP while he was out
Wow. It’s really difficult to imagine a likely scenario where that’s justified.
Wow. It’s really difficult to imagine a likely scenario where that’s justified.
They had a quota to fill, and they didn't know or didn't like anyone on that team.
Not that that is a justification, but it's almost certainly the reason.
Not that that is a justification, but it's almost certainly the reason.
A quota of people who needed to be on PIPs? That's insane.
Just a few months ago it came to light that managers at Amazon hire new people they're planning to fire shortly after, so they don't have to fire people they're attached to in order to meet such a quota.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-tracks-unregretted-at...
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-tracks-unregretted-at...
Just a few months ago? Wasn't that the case several years ago, or was than MS or one of the other FAANGs?
A few years ago there was a lot of noise about stack ranking at Microsoft, and there was also a lot about people crying at their desks at Amazon several years ago - perhaps you're remembering one of those. I believe the specific "hire to fire" press is pretty recent.
I remember hearing about "hire to fire" at Amazon as far back as 2014, though the claim was that it happened "merely" enough to have a cute name, not that it was endemic.
I think it was perhaps circulating in the professional networks and rumor mills before. I remember hearing about it a few years ago.
That is so fucked up
and if a mgr is not there to defend his team...
Imagine getting fired because your manager is on a leave and their manager sees you as free real estate.
Tells a lot about company politics. Often times I'm left wondering how come capitalism still survives.
Actually, writing this down made me think that big companies (like the FAANG mostly are) are quite anti-capitalistic. I'm not sure how to call them, because sure as hell they're not socialist or anything of the sorts, but it's reasonably clear that many of the theoretical capitalistic principles that many of us know in one way or another do not apply to these economic entities.
Actually, writing this down made me think that big companies (like the FAANG mostly are) are quite anti-capitalistic. I'm not sure how to call them, because sure as hell they're not socialist or anything of the sorts, but it's reasonably clear that many of the theoretical capitalistic principles that many of us know in one way or another do not apply to these economic entities.
Maybe more medieval: building up fiefdoms, power, resources, etc
Most companies are authoritarian internally. The people at the top make decisions and push those down to their lieutenants who then enforce those rules on the masses.
They are totalitarian. It really is strange, these corporations theoretically battling in a marketplace, but these large orgs with 15 datacenters and IT departments from six mergers are just thrown together into a big hierarchy and the middle management Machiavellis do knife fights over budget.
These companies could make competing internal IT groups and datacenters competing for projects and services in the company.
But companies don't like free markets and competition, every company strives to establish monopoly control. Likewise, middle management doesn't like competition, it clouds their promotion paths.
These companies could make competing internal IT groups and datacenters competing for projects and services in the company.
But companies don't like free markets and competition, every company strives to establish monopoly control. Likewise, middle management doesn't like competition, it clouds their promotion paths.
Oligarchic. (Internal) Leaders who run successful businesses call the shots for everyone.
You might like Ronald Coase's "The Nature of the Firm". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
A business is a socialist command economy embedded in a market economy, which has odd boundary effects at the interfaces.
A business is a socialist command economy embedded in a market economy, which has odd boundary effects at the interfaces.
Thanks, I'll give it a try. I had read about it and about Coase relatively recently but I had skipped the subject, mostly. I think it's a very interesting subject, especially for our field, to be honest I didn't expect for the consolidation at the top to happen so fast (~10-12 years) and at so grand a scale, 9 of the biggest 10 companies by market cap are tech companies (I'm including Tesla here).
Command economies are not necessarily socialist. In particular, businesses really don't fit the definition of socialism.
> Command economies are not necessarily socialist.
One counter-example comes immediately to mind, but mentioning that would cue a whole tedious discussion of "But that is socialism, it's even in the name!" vs "Just because it's in the name doesn't mean it actually is socialism!", so I won't spell it out.
> In particular, businesses really don't fit the definition of socialism.
No, true. As others have mentioned, feudalism ses a better fit.
One counter-example comes immediately to mind, but mentioning that would cue a whole tedious discussion of "But that is socialism, it's even in the name!" vs "Just because it's in the name doesn't mean it actually is socialism!", so I won't spell it out.
> In particular, businesses really don't fit the definition of socialism.
No, true. As others have mentioned, feudalism ses a better fit.
Capitalism does not imply free (i.e. competitive) market, or the other way around. Capitalism is an economic system in which ownership of the means of production (aka capital, hence the name) is treated the same as any other property, and can thus be accumulated indefinitely. Large corporations monopolizing whole industries is a pinnacle of raw capitalism in that sense, and it's also extremely bad for free market.
Do you mean the fairy tales that rich capitalists have ingrained into the American public consciousness about the unassailable axiomatic good that are "free markets"?
Because actual capitalism is just the means of production being privately owned and operated for profit. It says nothing about how companies operate or what kind of dystopian politics they might have.
Because actual capitalism is just the means of production being privately owned and operated for profit. It says nothing about how companies operate or what kind of dystopian politics they might have.
Hate to break it to you, but the word you’re looking for is “anti-competitive”. Capitalism is in fact designed to be anti-competitive, so in the absence of laws punishing anti-competitive behavior, capital accrues to those with the largest mass of capital.
Usually performance evaluations are done with managers of a certain level; if there is no manager to represent his/her direct reports, with stacked ranking they all get at the bottom. I personally had a direct report, ~ 10 years ago, with PIP because her previous direct manager was 3 months on paternity leave so she drew the short straw. The person was an average performer, so I fixed the PIP situation and she is still working there.
From what I hear, Amazon is incredibly uneven in org quality, so it is really possible your friend got unlucky. My wife works at Amazon and seems to have a pretty good balance and has good things to say about her work environment, but she is not a SWE (rather a designer). Still, I don't think I would ever work there without a lot of careful research about the group I was going into.
This is what they always say but they never say which orgs are good or bad. When you’re a candidate you are rolling the dice
Perhaps every other org is a good one.
---
"I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Two pence a week, and jam every other day."
Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire me – and I don't care for jam."
"It's very good jam," said the Queen.
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"
---
"I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Two pence a week, and jam every other day."
Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire me – and I don't care for jam."
"It's very good jam," said the Queen.
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"
This is perfect :) . I am as illiterate as one can be, but loved this reference.
It's even cleverer than that - it's also a reference on latin conjugations builtin to the Queen's joke. Carroll was a smart cookie.
You can just search Blind to figure out which orgs are good or bad. I work at Music and it's great.
> When you’re a candidate you are rolling the dice
Ya, and the recruiters always try to get you into what sound like would be the worst orgs (I would guess positions in good orgs are "known" about outside of what the recruiters are trying to fill).
Ya, and the recruiters always try to get you into what sound like would be the worst orgs (I would guess positions in good orgs are "known" about outside of what the recruiters are trying to fill).
It’s wild. I did more than 4 years across three teams, left, boomeranged, and quit after three months.
You and me both! I made it to the round of in-person interviews when I was pursuing a principal pm role. 5 hours of back to back interviews, expressionless faces, repeated questions and almost zero eye-contact.
I am not certain what they were going for, though I can tell you I left knowing that even if I had gotten an offer, there was no way in hell I'd be accepting. It's obvious there are some very successful (happy?) amazon people (amazonians?) but no thank you, I enjoy living.
I am not certain what they were going for, though I can tell you I left knowing that even if I had gotten an offer, there was no way in hell I'd be accepting. It's obvious there are some very successful (happy?) amazon people (amazonians?) but no thank you, I enjoy living.
10 months in the pit is no joke. I'm on 13 and often wonder how I made it this far.
I have a friend who lasted more than 2 years which amazed me but then his compensation _went_down_ because of Amazon's crazy comp structure works.
I have another friend who was offered a job there and turned them down, then the hiring manager fired back with "Oh c'mon, you just have to last a year here and then you can put Amazon on your resume" which is hilarious and totally fucked up.
"We aren't going to pretend that you will actually like working here but if you suffer for about a year, it's gonna do wonders for attracting future employers"
I often wonder if Amazon wouldn't actually be more successful if they treated their people better. I think there's a strong sentiment of Emperor Bezos' New Clothes and survivorship bias that has Amazon leadership convinced that being evil bastards is the only reason/way the company can be successful.
I have another friend who was offered a job there and turned them down, then the hiring manager fired back with "Oh c'mon, you just have to last a year here and then you can put Amazon on your resume" which is hilarious and totally fucked up.
"We aren't going to pretend that you will actually like working here but if you suffer for about a year, it's gonna do wonders for attracting future employers"
I often wonder if Amazon wouldn't actually be more successful if they treated their people better. I think there's a strong sentiment of Emperor Bezos' New Clothes and survivorship bias that has Amazon leadership convinced that being evil bastards is the only reason/way the company can be successful.
There's a built in assumption of stock growth in the grant they give you, and after year 2 the bonus dries up so it's your base of 160 + whatever the equity is. Year 2 -> 3 comp drop is not uncommon.
The difference is that Amazon (unlike the other giants) doesn't have a moat.
Facebook and Google basically have one product that is a money machine which funds everything else. The rest is mostly window dressing.
Amazon does not have the luxury of being able to rest.
I think you will find a similar culture at Netflix, which is also in a competitive market.
Facebook and Google basically have one product that is a money machine which funds everything else. The rest is mostly window dressing.
Amazon does not have the luxury of being able to rest.
I think you will find a similar culture at Netflix, which is also in a competitive market.
Plenty of places are hiring
engineers for remote roles now, including my employer. If you're able to carve out some time to look around it might be worth it.
This explains a lot about why Amazon services are like they are.
What does PIP stand for? I haven't run into that acronym before
Performance Improvement Plan. On paper, it's a program where management works with you to improve your weak points so you don't get fired. In practice, it's HR protecting the company by documenting reasons to fire you before they fire you.
It's rare (not unheard of, but rare) to work your way out of a PIP. In general, if you get put on a PIP, I would immediately start doing some soul-searching as to why I might be on the PIP and how I can improve AND I would start looking immediately for a new job.
It's rare (not unheard of, but rare) to work your way out of a PIP. In general, if you get put on a PIP, I would immediately start doing some soul-searching as to why I might be on the PIP and how I can improve AND I would start looking immediately for a new job.
I’ve only worked in the public sector and have only had to PIP people a few times. It’s almost always a sign that you need to get out. I’ve only done it when I’m at wits end with a person. They all ended up quitting before we got to the 90 days but yeah as said it’s basically a CYA move. Likely the people are low performing enough by some measure you can fire them but it’s sort of a last chance thing. And it documents where they need to improve and what they need to do, so all that is good for the employee if they want to improve (and I do believe nobody wants to do a bad job).
I have a good friend who manages a fairly large group at a (mostly) government subcontractor. Their description is similar. A PIP comes after someone has been completely unresponsive to requests of various kinds, isn't doing good (if any) work, etc. My sense is that a PIP, in this case, is a reluctant last resort after months of this--and hardly ever works.
> and hardly ever works.
Technically, there are two desirable outcomes to a PIP:
1) the employee improves and no longer needs to be on a PIP (rare)
2) the company successfully fires the employee and doesn't get sued because they covered their ass with a PIP
From HR's perspective (and the manager's), it is indeed the reluctant last resort, but it's essentially a win/win for the company. Either the employee improves, or they can fire them while minimizing legal risk.
In other words, it fulfills its intent quite nicely. It just doesn't always end positively for the employee. So I guess in that sense, it depends on which way you look at it.
Technically, there are two desirable outcomes to a PIP:
1) the employee improves and no longer needs to be on a PIP (rare)
2) the company successfully fires the employee and doesn't get sued because they covered their ass with a PIP
From HR's perspective (and the manager's), it is indeed the reluctant last resort, but it's essentially a win/win for the company. Either the employee improves, or they can fire them while minimizing legal risk.
In other words, it fulfills its intent quite nicely. It just doesn't always end positively for the employee. So I guess in that sense, it depends on which way you look at it.
I had a friend who was put on a PIP at a smallish company. Company had 200+ people, but this satellite office in a different state had about... 8-10, and was run more or less by a single guy. He put my friend on a PIP - which was just... strange, because they'd sort of built up that office on their own initially just the 2 of them, then it grew a bit more. He PIPs he, then leaves a couple weeks later, and no one had any idea how to handle this dangling PIP. IIRC the company just erased it, and she was there for another couple of years after that, with no issues (other than bad pay and shrinking office size).
I got on a (non-Amazon) PIP once for not turning up on many Mondays to many times, and would have passed it (all I had to do was turn up every day I was scheduled to work for a month) but failed because I didn't turn up on NYE (mate convinced me to "stay for one" at Scala) one day before my PIP was supposedly over in the new year (totally my fault).
I feel it would have been possible to work my way out of it, I think different companies use them in different ways.
Ah well, most of the team got poached by Revolut anyway. I find WFH suits me a lot better because as long as I can go to stand up after a heavy weekend (which is a lot easier if you can do it from home) and then achieve above and beyond the rest of the week, there's a lot less anxiety.
I feel it would have been possible to work my way out of it, I think different companies use them in different ways.
Ah well, most of the team got poached by Revolut anyway. I find WFH suits me a lot better because as long as I can go to stand up after a heavy weekend (which is a lot easier if you can do it from home) and then achieve above and beyond the rest of the week, there's a lot less anxiety.
Good advice.
No matter how much you might try to "ace" it and put in your best effort, more than 9 out of 10 times, the person will not come out of it. Anything and everything no matter how minor is likely to be used as supporting evidence. So interpret it as a notice of eviction of sorts where they pay you some months to find a new job.
Yes, there are exceptions. Thing is do you want to try your luck with HR?
No matter how much you might try to "ace" it and put in your best effort, more than 9 out of 10 times, the person will not come out of it. Anything and everything no matter how minor is likely to be used as supporting evidence. So interpret it as a notice of eviction of sorts where they pay you some months to find a new job.
Yes, there are exceptions. Thing is do you want to try your luck with HR?
It is the full force of the company saying “we don’t perceive you as being performant anymore”. Even on the individual level changing someone’s perceptions takes double or triple the effort to establish them in the first place.
Soul searching is easy. The only people who put up with that shit are people who don't feel good enough, so they are begging their master like a dog to please, please like them!!
The cure? Don't allow corporations to set your value, specially not mad and crazy corporations like amazon and space penis.
The cure? Don't allow corporations to set your value, specially not mad and crazy corporations like amazon and space penis.
Some people are genuinely hired above their level or have been coasting so long the don't realize they are coasting, and so there are legitimate uses for PIPs. That being said, I hear it's a perverse shadow of that at companies like Amazon that use quotas to go looking for reasons to fire people.
In my experience, some people can be really oblivious. I've seen past situations where a company didn't have a formal PIP process, but it was blatantly obvious to everyone concerned--except apparently the person themselves--that they just couldn't do the job and were a massive time suck on others and weren't improving in spite of all sorts of attempts to help them. And they were totally shocked when they were fired "out of the blue."
Do you know is there a built-in per year PIP percentage at AWS? Does PIP involve a severance payment?
10%. They will all be offered about ~3 months salary (depends on tenure). Some will stay and try to work through it, some will succeed, some won't and only get ~1 month salary severance now. Amazon is really aiming for 6% actually fired, by first trying to fire 10%.
Because the rational choice is to take the high severance (being handed the PIP means your manager and manager's manager have already made up their minds against you, I've seen a coworker given an impossible task), that means that being an average Amazon engineer will have a 50% chance of being fired by your 5th year.
Because the rational choice is to take the high severance (being handed the PIP means your manager and manager's manager have already made up their minds against you, I've seen a coworker given an impossible task), that means that being an average Amazon engineer will have a 50% chance of being fired by your 5th year.
I have no idea. I don't work at Amazon. Typically in the tech industry, departures tend to have severance included, unless it's for something egregious (eg violence), so I would imagine it does include severance. But again, I don't work for Amazon, so no idea. :)
Performance Improvement Plan. It's basically the company's way of saying "We want to fire you, but don't have a reason on the books, so here you go. In six months, pack your bags and go."
I respect your view and while that may be true on a lot of cases that's not what the company represents a pip to be.
A PIP is a situation where you are told you are not performing at the desired level and needs to improve. In a respectable company being on a pip can be good for you. In my personal case I was not performing well due to personal issues. Getting on a pip saved my job. It gave me the resources and attention to turn the situation around. You get a clearer plan of what you need to do and closer relationship with mentors to help you on the way.
But again if you don't improve you are fired and you have that hanging over your head.
A PIP is a situation where you are told you are not performing at the desired level and needs to improve. In a respectable company being on a pip can be good for you. In my personal case I was not performing well due to personal issues. Getting on a pip saved my job. It gave me the resources and attention to turn the situation around. You get a clearer plan of what you need to do and closer relationship with mentors to help you on the way.
But again if you don't improve you are fired and you have that hanging over your head.
I've put people on PIPs. I genuinely wanted them to do better. They did. Like you said, they are a tool for laser-focusing attention on specific, well-defined issues.
There is no actual ass-covering need to put someone on a PIP. If a company in the U.S. wants to fire you, they generally don't need a reason.
Individual company cultures will, of course, vary. There are a lot of shitty managers out there.
There is no actual ass-covering need to put someone on a PIP. If a company in the U.S. wants to fire you, they generally don't need a reason.
Individual company cultures will, of course, vary. There are a lot of shitty managers out there.
> If a company in the U.S. wants to fire you, they generally don't need a reason.
That's only true if they can prove the reason isn't one of several prohibited reasons (racism, sexism, ageism, etc.). And how do you do that? Have a PIP system in place in which the acceptable reason is documented in detail and all employees are treated consistently.
That's why PIPs are effectively termination at many companies. Even if you survive it will be permanently on your record and your opportunities for advancement will narrow significantly.
That's only true if they can prove the reason isn't one of several prohibited reasons (racism, sexism, ageism, etc.). And how do you do that? Have a PIP system in place in which the acceptable reason is documented in detail and all employees are treated consistently.
That's why PIPs are effectively termination at many companies. Even if you survive it will be permanently on your record and your opportunities for advancement will narrow significantly.
> That's only true if they can prove the reason isn't one of several prohibited reasons (racism, sexism, ageism, etc.).
They don't need to prove anything. In employment discrimination cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
They don't need to prove anything. In employment discrimination cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
It's still a risk. An assertion of discrimination, even without evidence, is going to be a painful court case. After all, "Soandso said he didn't like X people, and then fired me" is impossible to prove or disprove, but it sure can rack up some court time and lawyer fees, with the possibility of a loss in the event of an unsympathetic jury.
But a documented process, that was followed, that set defined goals, and recorded failures, is going to be a much faster and more sure trial.
But a documented process, that was followed, that set defined goals, and recorded failures, is going to be a much faster and more sure trial.
Wrong. Google “Title VII burden shifting framework.” It will cost you tens of thousands to get a frivolous case dismissed. In wage/hour cases, the burden is almost entirely shifted to the employer.
Also with respect to the attorney fee provisions, in California they are almost entirely one way in practice even the ones that are loser pays in reality.
Also with respect to the attorney fee provisions, in California they are almost entirely one way in practice even the ones that are loser pays in reality.
Right, that has also been my experience (granted, in another country where a company can fire you with no reason if they pay you 3 months severance).
For me as a manager, the PIP allowed me to set up an environment where the developer would be able to perform their job in isolation with specific, measurable and concrete tasks that do not depend on any third party.
I've successfully applied this for some devs that were doing really bad for more than 6 months, and it allowed me to find that the person was in the middle of a lot of shit. Once the developer was isolated and given specific tasks, they showed why we have hired them in the first place.
I also have let go a developer for whom the performance plan was more on the people skills side: This person was just not a team player, and was dragging the team along with him. A PIP allowed us to show him exactly why he ended up not being a match for the company.
And then there was another one who was just lazy... didn't do stuff, and after the 2nd month of the PIP he acknowledged that he was just being lazy, and waited for the PIP time to expire so that we fired him (with 3 months severance).
For me as a manager, the PIP allowed me to set up an environment where the developer would be able to perform their job in isolation with specific, measurable and concrete tasks that do not depend on any third party.
I've successfully applied this for some devs that were doing really bad for more than 6 months, and it allowed me to find that the person was in the middle of a lot of shit. Once the developer was isolated and given specific tasks, they showed why we have hired them in the first place.
I also have let go a developer for whom the performance plan was more on the people skills side: This person was just not a team player, and was dragging the team along with him. A PIP allowed us to show him exactly why he ended up not being a match for the company.
And then there was another one who was just lazy... didn't do stuff, and after the 2nd month of the PIP he acknowledged that he was just being lazy, and waited for the PIP time to expire so that we fired him (with 3 months severance).
Legally yes but large companies generally have rules in place that go beyond legal requirements. One of those rules could be “you can’t fire someone for performance reasons without putting them on a PIP first and documenting why it failed”. Middle managers have very little power in bending those rules.
It's not that they need a reason intrinsically, it's that if the person being fired is of a protected class, the company wants to protect against that person suing for discrimination. Those sort of suits are definitely filed without grounds sometimes, and it's expensive to prove it's baseless, so the PIP can be a way to establish cause.
All that said I agree they can be genuine. They also can be ass-covering.
All that said I agree they can be genuine. They also can be ass-covering.
> Individual company cultures will, of course, vary. There are a lot of shitty managers out there.
Which is why I advise anyone who asks me about PIPs who I deem is sufficiently introspective to immediately secure another job and leave if they receive one. The pure game theoretic approach for employees to use is: unless they have overwhelming historical evidence their manager is someone like you, it is safer for them to assume they are in the majority lumped in with sub-optimal management (much less leadership, both activities tough as hell to pull off well), and insta-bail as soon as they can.
The challenge with PIP's is there are no governance controls around their deployment, so they are weaponized for purposes other than their purported staff development role: as budget controls (deliberately hire some people with the intention to PIP them to maintain headcount), as knife fighting, as political machinations, as compensation-busting tool, etc.
There are legitimate employees who need a PIP for the ostensible purpose they were created for. They're more rare in my experience than how many times PIP's are actually used.
Which is why I advise anyone who asks me about PIPs who I deem is sufficiently introspective to immediately secure another job and leave if they receive one. The pure game theoretic approach for employees to use is: unless they have overwhelming historical evidence their manager is someone like you, it is safer for them to assume they are in the majority lumped in with sub-optimal management (much less leadership, both activities tough as hell to pull off well), and insta-bail as soon as they can.
The challenge with PIP's is there are no governance controls around their deployment, so they are weaponized for purposes other than their purported staff development role: as budget controls (deliberately hire some people with the intention to PIP them to maintain headcount), as knife fighting, as political machinations, as compensation-busting tool, etc.
There are legitimate employees who need a PIP for the ostensible purpose they were created for. They're more rare in my experience than how many times PIP's are actually used.
> they generally don't need a reason.
This is true as far as it goes, but exceptions to the at-will rule include Title VII claims, so if they have an illusion of a dream of a identity-based claim, you need some documentation.
Since most companies don’t want to pay even the minuscule amount required to get a valid release, this is the alternative.
This is true as far as it goes, but exceptions to the at-will rule include Title VII claims, so if they have an illusion of a dream of a identity-based claim, you need some documentation.
Since most companies don’t want to pay even the minuscule amount required to get a valid release, this is the alternative.
[deleted]
the key words here are
"what the company represents"
of course they are not going to represent it as, "we are going to fire you".
Good for you to keep the job (if that's what you wanted) but in general it's a legal process companies do to easily fire people.
"what the company represents"
of course they are not going to represent it as, "we are going to fire you".
Good for you to keep the job (if that's what you wanted) but in general it's a legal process companies do to easily fire people.
The one case I have first hand knowledge of someone put on a PIP, they had done some specific things and also clearly weren't interested in their primary job any longer. I'm pretty sure they could have recovered had they found a way to jump into their current (or another) role again. They had been quite respected for a lot of things.
But it was really a time for a parting of the ways at that point.
But it was really a time for a parting of the ways at that point.
It's all perspective, and this simplification isn't accurate.
It's "I don't want to fire you, but you need to fix these things. Let's put this in the books so there's no disagreement over whether you're aware, and what you need to do."
In most cases at-will employment means the employer/manager can fire a person, so if that was the only thing going on, it would already be done.
It's "I don't want to fire you, but you need to fix these things. Let's put this in the books so there's no disagreement over whether you're aware, and what you need to do."
In most cases at-will employment means the employer/manager can fire a person, so if that was the only thing going on, it would already be done.
> In most cases at-will employment means the employer/manager can fire a person
For anyone who is a member of at least one protected class (which everyone who has any [or where this is possible, no] race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin unambiguously is for each that apply, and there's some others that are less universal, and that's just under federal law) there is always a risk that that they will file a claim to have been dismissed for that reason, and under the civil preponderance of the evidence standard, if they have any substantial evidence indicating that might be the case the employer needs to overcome it with superior evidence that it is not.
And that is what a PIP is for, to provide the evidence trail supporting that alternative reason. They also serve as notice to people to get out before they are fired, which (unless bungled bad enough to support a constructive termination claim) also avoids wrongful termination liability, because the departure is voluntary. PIPs have nothing to do with performance improvement and everything to do with liability containment.
For actual performance problems that the employer wants to resolve, regular performance reviews and informal counseling that occurs before a PIP is the means to address it.
For anyone who is a member of at least one protected class (which everyone who has any [or where this is possible, no] race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin unambiguously is for each that apply, and there's some others that are less universal, and that's just under federal law) there is always a risk that that they will file a claim to have been dismissed for that reason, and under the civil preponderance of the evidence standard, if they have any substantial evidence indicating that might be the case the employer needs to overcome it with superior evidence that it is not.
And that is what a PIP is for, to provide the evidence trail supporting that alternative reason. They also serve as notice to people to get out before they are fired, which (unless bungled bad enough to support a constructive termination claim) also avoids wrongful termination liability, because the departure is voluntary. PIPs have nothing to do with performance improvement and everything to do with liability containment.
For actual performance problems that the employer wants to resolve, regular performance reviews and informal counseling that occurs before a PIP is the means to address it.
Worked at a FAANG in one team for 3.5 years (got promoted and had good reviews), transferred to a new team and got PIP'd by new manager and eventually fired within a year of transferring. One of my workmates clearly told me that my chances of getting out of the PIP were next to zero but by then it was too late.
Best advice I can give someone who gets on a PIP is don't wait or work the process, just make an exit plan and act on it (interview quickly) and own your destiny. Also if you've been a stellar performer and you move to a team where things aren't working out within the first 3 months, transfer quickly (go to HR and claim mental and emotional wellbeing) before your performance reviews get trashed and then it's impossible to transfer.
Best advice I can give someone who gets on a PIP is don't wait or work the process, just make an exit plan and act on it (interview quickly) and own your destiny. Also if you've been a stellar performer and you move to a team where things aren't working out within the first 3 months, transfer quickly (go to HR and claim mental and emotional wellbeing) before your performance reviews get trashed and then it's impossible to transfer.
Wow, so it's basically like you are a new hire when you transfer? Do you mind saying which FAANG or is the experience you had simply norm at all of them?
> Wow, so it's basically like you are a new hire when you transfer? Do you mind saying which FAANG or is the experience you had simply norm at all of them?
The Big G. Your past performance primarily only influences the decision on whether you have a good track record of delivering, but once you transfer you essentially reset the clock with the new team and manager and the expectations might be completely different for whichever reason, it could be personality or org structures etc. I don't know if my experience is the norm at all of them since I haven't worked at all the FAANGs, but as I said it's important to "read the tea leaves" early, and if the new team doesn't feel right make your opinions known early and plan an exit before you come a statistic.
The Big G. Your past performance primarily only influences the decision on whether you have a good track record of delivering, but once you transfer you essentially reset the clock with the new team and manager and the expectations might be completely different for whichever reason, it could be personality or org structures etc. I don't know if my experience is the norm at all of them since I haven't worked at all the FAANGs, but as I said it's important to "read the tea leaves" early, and if the new team doesn't feel right make your opinions known early and plan an exit before you come a statistic.
Performance Improvement Plan: "We're trying to fire you but need to do it by the books as to mitigate liability."
I don't understand why people keep saying this. Every state except Montana in the US is "at will": the employer can fire you at any time with no reason. I suppose you could try to prove discrimination because of age or something else, but just like you can walk out and never come back, the employer can ask you to leave and you're done. Companies have no liability if you are fired other than a discrimination lawsuit.
https://work.chron.com/fire-state-mean-20994.html
https://work.chron.com/fire-state-mean-20994.html
Legal departments are often fairly conservative. Do you know for a fact that the person you are firing is not a member of a protected class? If they are then they can potentially convince a judge that "fired with no reason" could be code for "fired for being the member of a protected class," at least to the degree that the trial cannot be dismissed.
Once you have reached that point, it's almost moot whether or not the plaintiff will win, as lawsuits are sufficiently headache inducing and expensive that a settlement is likely.
The odds of the above happening might be low, but being made aware of the possibility causes employers to CYA more than you might think in an at-will state.
Once you have reached that point, it's almost moot whether or not the plaintiff will win, as lawsuits are sufficiently headache inducing and expensive that a settlement is likely.
The odds of the above happening might be low, but being made aware of the possibility causes employers to CYA more than you might think in an at-will state.
Everyone is in a protected class. It’s a common misconception that white men etc aren’t. Under employment laws, if you suffer adverse employment actions on the basis of a protected class, even if you are a white cishet thin Protestant male with money and an Ivy League degree you are in protected classes.
Lawyers tell management this and get blamed for the law and courts being the way hey are. “Buy them out with a severance and a release” gets “why should I pay for something I’m allowed to do.” A few months later in house counsel gets screamed at “why is outside counsel charging us $50,000 for this summary judgment case?!”
“Well, I told you that——-“
“This is your fault! Why doesn’t EPLI cover it”
“You said it was too expensive, so we got the one with the high deductible.”
Since the defense bar also lines their pockets with these cases, and scare pieces on their blogs “review your employee handbook now or else!” No one fixes anything.
Lawyers tell management this and get blamed for the law and courts being the way hey are. “Buy them out with a severance and a release” gets “why should I pay for something I’m allowed to do.” A few months later in house counsel gets screamed at “why is outside counsel charging us $50,000 for this summary judgment case?!”
“Well, I told you that——-“
“This is your fault! Why doesn’t EPLI cover it”
“You said it was too expensive, so we got the one with the high deductible.”
Since the defense bar also lines their pockets with these cases, and scare pieces on their blogs “review your employee handbook now or else!” No one fixes anything.
Also, it's a check against management.
That's also a good point. If the manager for the direct report is racist/sexist/agist/whatever then the CYA becomes even more important for the company.
the employer can fire you at any time with no reason
And in the U. S., anyone can sue anyone at any time with no reason (though there should be some semblance of a reason, or good luck finding counsel to take the case). Maybe you fired me because I'm black, maybe you didn't, but without any documentation of what the real reason was, the company stands a good chance of settling to avoid the time in court.
And in the U. S., anyone can sue anyone at any time with no reason (though there should be some semblance of a reason, or good luck finding counsel to take the case). Maybe you fired me because I'm black, maybe you didn't, but without any documentation of what the real reason was, the company stands a good chance of settling to avoid the time in court.
"And in the U. S., anyone can sue anyone at any time with no reason (though there should be some semblance of a reason, or good luck finding counsel to take the case)."
Judges hate this be careful. If you sue for "not enough ham in your subway sandwich" - I would bring overnight clothes and a toothbrush. Contempt of court is a thing. Judges hate time wasters.
Judges hate this be careful. If you sue for "not enough ham in your subway sandwich" - I would bring overnight clothes and a toothbrush. Contempt of court is a thing. Judges hate time wasters.
Because some of their employees are in one or more protected classes and if you don't have a legit reason documented it's much harder to defend against a claim of illegal discrimination.
And you can't just gather those reasons for employees in protected classes or that itself is discriminatory treatment of employees.
So you have to make a choice as a large company: PIP systems or set aside more money for legal fees and settlements. Most opt for the former.
And you can't just gather those reasons for employees in protected classes or that itself is discriminatory treatment of employees.
So you have to make a choice as a large company: PIP systems or set aside more money for legal fees and settlements. Most opt for the former.
Because that’s true. You think it’s free to get even a frivolous case dismissed under discrimination or wage/hour laws? Lol. Google “title VII burden shifting framework.” For companies in SV, i.e. under CA law, it’s easily tens of thousands to dismiss even a frivolous case.
Better documentation means only increasingly bottom feeding plaintiffs lawyers will take the case.
Better documentation means only increasingly bottom feeding plaintiffs lawyers will take the case.
It's also about making it firing "for/with cause" so the employee can't make a successful unemployment claim. The more unemployment claims against a company, the higher unemployment insurance rates/amounts the company has to pay.
Being fired just because you’re bad at your job (as would normally be the case with a PIP) doesn’t make you ineligible for unemployment. Typically you’d have to be fired for gross negligence or doing something outright illegal.
When management starts arbitrarily firing people without the perception that it’s a fair process, absolutely nobody sticks around. The process is for the benefit of retention because of employees perceive they can be dropped on a whim they start to act like it.
The internet is bigger than america, it's a shame I need to remind you.
Remind me again of the location of the corporate headquarters of the company that this portion of the thread is specifically talking about? Need I remind you of context?
If this were true, why are PIPs not universal across virtually every industry? It isn't like fired employees in software would be uniquely litigious.
I've worked on employment litigation in several industries (white and blue collar), they are everywhere.
Defense usually wins if they have good documentation of putting employees on a PIP, even if the reason is obviously dubious*.
Maybe I'm cynical because I've only seen it in a lawsuit context, but if you're put on a PIP, start applying. There's no out.
* like, discrimination, company wants to fire long-term employee because of an injury, company wants to fire an employee for union organizing, etc.
Defense usually wins if they have good documentation of putting employees on a PIP, even if the reason is obviously dubious*.
Maybe I'm cynical because I've only seen it in a lawsuit context, but if you're put on a PIP, start applying. There's no out.
* like, discrimination, company wants to fire long-term employee because of an injury, company wants to fire an employee for union organizing, etc.
> There's no out.
I'm a manager at Google and have therefore been privy to a bunch of PIPs. I know a bunch of people who have survived them and many of them have later gone on and had successful promos. I've seen exactly one case where everybody involved was resigned to the fact that the PIP would almost certainly fail and that is because the person being fired was a raging asshole. A manager who wrote a PIP designed to be impossible would themselves be given shit performance reviews.
I'm a manager at Google and have therefore been privy to a bunch of PIPs. I know a bunch of people who have survived them and many of them have later gone on and had successful promos. I've seen exactly one case where everybody involved was resigned to the fact that the PIP would almost certainly fail and that is because the person being fired was a raging asshole. A manager who wrote a PIP designed to be impossible would themselves be given shit performance reviews.
Exactly. A PIP is "I don't want to fire you, but you gotta fix some stuff."
Complex environments like Google need to build and retain knowledge. Firing for zero cause is just...well, we have serious things to do, and that's just dumb. I've never seen it.
A PIP isn't just a closed two-way conversation between a report and a manager. In every case I've seen there are multiple eyes on a PIP and revisions to them.
A PIP isn't just a closed two-way conversation between a report and a manager. In every case I've seen there are multiple eyes on a PIP and revisions to them.
I suspect white collar employees are a lot more likely to sue an employer in general, and PIPs are pretty common across white collar industries. Filing a lawsuit is a lot easier for people who have money in the bank, a flexible schedule, familiarity with the law, and personal connections to lawyers; all attributes that correlate with white collar professionals.
Paid interview preparation (time). Only slightly joking
Replies laid out what it means on paper but what is the employees actual best move? Sounds intentionally impossible to climb out of.
Are they given a buyout option to leave or just sit in purgatory for 6 months?
It depends on the manager who constructs the pip and goals.
The manager might lean towards salvaging or maybe documentation. Usually, an honest manager would give some hints as to the nature. Like, maybe it’s best you look at other opportunities kinda nods. Some people are also just bad as reading the crowd and would ignore a written sign that stated “you will be fired.”
I’ve seen bad managers give a junior work that needed a whole team to resolve. I stepped in during reviews and fixed that train wreck. However, on their second chance with simpler work it didn’t turn out much better. At that point we probably soured the engineer. Later we removed the shitty manager. He took off as soon as he received his PIP.
One of my first batch of directs I took over was in the latter group. He made no connection that this could lead to termination. I would love to have heard the conversation with his previous manager. Also, he might have been feigning ignorance for more time. He quite simply just needed direct coaching on interacting with people. He went from the worst engineer to someone I tried to give the highest rankings. My manager wouldn’t have it, but we did compromise.
A lot goes on in the background, but something I never did was bend to statistics. I didn’t care what HR thought was the expected target. Some people are spineless and just rollover. Drives me mad. What are they going to do? Fire me and send me some place else for more money?
The manager might lean towards salvaging or maybe documentation. Usually, an honest manager would give some hints as to the nature. Like, maybe it’s best you look at other opportunities kinda nods. Some people are also just bad as reading the crowd and would ignore a written sign that stated “you will be fired.”
I’ve seen bad managers give a junior work that needed a whole team to resolve. I stepped in during reviews and fixed that train wreck. However, on their second chance with simpler work it didn’t turn out much better. At that point we probably soured the engineer. Later we removed the shitty manager. He took off as soon as he received his PIP.
One of my first batch of directs I took over was in the latter group. He made no connection that this could lead to termination. I would love to have heard the conversation with his previous manager. Also, he might have been feigning ignorance for more time. He quite simply just needed direct coaching on interacting with people. He went from the worst engineer to someone I tried to give the highest rankings. My manager wouldn’t have it, but we did compromise.
A lot goes on in the background, but something I never did was bend to statistics. I didn’t care what HR thought was the expected target. Some people are spineless and just rollover. Drives me mad. What are they going to do? Fire me and send me some place else for more money?
It depends on the employee and the organization. If the employee in question really has been under-performing, believes meeting the goals is possible, and wants to stay, then accepting the PIP and trying to succeed is a risky but valid choice.
On the other hand, if the employee in question is fairly certain the PIP conditions can't be satisfied, signing the PIP is a very bad idea. It amounts to written acknowledgement of failing to perform the employee's end of the employment contract and gives the employer justification to fire the employee with cause. If that's the case, declining to sign the PIP and asking about alternative next steps is the way to go. In that case, there's a good chance that the company will offer an exit package in exchange for a general release. One of the upsides of this approach is there's no PIP in the employee file, on the off chance eligibility for re-hire is a concern.
On the other hand, if the employee in question is fairly certain the PIP conditions can't be satisfied, signing the PIP is a very bad idea. It amounts to written acknowledgement of failing to perform the employee's end of the employment contract and gives the employer justification to fire the employee with cause. If that's the case, declining to sign the PIP and asking about alternative next steps is the way to go. In that case, there's a good chance that the company will offer an exit package in exchange for a general release. One of the upsides of this approach is there's no PIP in the employee file, on the off chance eligibility for re-hire is a concern.
Exactly. Object to the PIP suggestion, and say it is being imposed without proper cause for a discriminatory reason, e.g. to harass and force out an employee over 40. That totally fucks their attempt to gather fake reasons to fire you, their only option is to offer you money to quit. I ran into this at a company where my good work was documented, but I'd accidentally annoyed someone really high up and strings were being pulled to ditch me.
As soon as you get a PIP, get out when you can.
Agreed. I can't see any possible upside for staying.
It's like if someone threatens you with a lawsuit. You don't communicate with them ever again, you tell them to contact you via lawyer and hopefully you never hear from them again.
It's like if someone threatens you with a lawsuit. You don't communicate with them ever again, you tell them to contact you via lawyer and hopefully you never hear from them again.
Performance Improvement Plan- it's basically the precursor to firing that companies do to cover themselves from a lawsuit for wrongful termination
Performance Improvement Plan. Basically, a fancy way for a company to say they tried to help you improve before firing you.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think it's performance improvement plan, but that's a guess
Performance improvement plan
This, and it's mostly a death sentence. If you're on a PIP the odds you survive it are low, used mostly to manage people into quitting.
"You're fired, but I am just waiting on the paperwork."
[deleted]
I've also had engineering friends that worked for Amazon, none of them had anything positive to say about them. One interesting situation is that one of them worked for Google for several years before moving to Amazon. Less than 2 months later he quit working for Amazon and went back to Google.
I've read articles claiming that Bezos had certain opinions about people being lazy, and that he intentionally structured Amazon to make it almost impossible to get promoted. Basically, people are hired to do a specific job, and they will never be allowed to do any other job or be promoted until they quit from overwork. The exceptionally few people that both deliver the impossible and don't quit over the workload are treated as valuable, but only at the specific job they are currently doing.
From what I've been able to piece together, this was always at least somewhat true, but has gotten much worse the last few years. I think Amazon is likely going to start running dry on willing candidates in their engineering and management teams within a couple of years and we'll see them start to lose market share as a result.
I've read articles claiming that Bezos had certain opinions about people being lazy, and that he intentionally structured Amazon to make it almost impossible to get promoted. Basically, people are hired to do a specific job, and they will never be allowed to do any other job or be promoted until they quit from overwork. The exceptionally few people that both deliver the impossible and don't quit over the workload are treated as valuable, but only at the specific job they are currently doing.
From what I've been able to piece together, this was always at least somewhat true, but has gotten much worse the last few years. I think Amazon is likely going to start running dry on willing candidates in their engineering and management teams within a couple of years and we'll see them start to lose market share as a result.
>>Friend of mine started a role there (this was 4-5 years ago) and was fired (sorry... more or less asked to leave, being told he could keep his signing bonus if he just left) within about six weeks because he wasn't immediately delivering on some insane amounts of work.
Its crazy how these FANGs promise the moon, the serious RSU vesting starts only after 1 - 2 years and the average tenure is like 1.5 years.
>>he came back from parental leave and his direct reports had all been put on a PIP while he was out
I've heard this quite a bit at many places, when you go on a longish leave of any kind basically people kind of replace you. When you come back you discover your job is gone, for this reason alone I don't know many people who take these long leaves/vacations.
Its crazy how these FANGs promise the moon, the serious RSU vesting starts only after 1 - 2 years and the average tenure is like 1.5 years.
>>he came back from parental leave and his direct reports had all been put on a PIP while he was out
I've heard this quite a bit at many places, when you go on a longish leave of any kind basically people kind of replace you. When you come back you discover your job is gone, for this reason alone I don't know many people who take these long leaves/vacations.
> within about six weeks because he wasn't immediately delivering on some insane amounts of work
I've heard that, because of the stack ranking, if managers want to keep their current team unchanged, they sometimes hire someone new just so that they can turn around and fire them.
I've heard that, because of the stack ranking, if managers want to keep their current team unchanged, they sometimes hire someone new just so that they can turn around and fire them.
These are one-sided stories recounted by someone with an axe to grind...
Please consider increasing the contrast on your text. As is (light-gray-on-lighter-gray) I cannot read it as it literally hurts my eyes trying to focus on it.
EDIT: It seems this is not intentional, some of the stylesheets are returning 404 for me but not other people... weird.
EDIT: Amazingly, it turns out this site is hosted on the platform of which I'm the lead engineer (Cloudflare Workers / Pages) and the problem is in fact our own fault, not Ben's. Wow. We'll... get on that. Sorry.
FINAL EDIT (hopefully): Not necessarily a bug so much as classic cache skew... explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29814868
EDIT: It seems this is not intentional, some of the stylesheets are returning 404 for me but not other people... weird.
EDIT: Amazingly, it turns out this site is hosted on the platform of which I'm the lead engineer (Cloudflare Workers / Pages) and the problem is in fact our own fault, not Ben's. Wow. We'll... get on that. Sorry.
FINAL EDIT (hopefully): Not necessarily a bug so much as classic cache skew... explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29814868
A browsing tip: In Firefox, you can right-click on low-contrast text, select 'Inspect (Q)', and a thing will pop up showing all of the attributes of the text. You can uncheck the 'color' styles to restore a good text color, the filter at the top of the list helps find the 'color' entries. For some reason everyone loves grey-on-grey these days, so I find I'm doing this a lot.
I've been thinking of writing a Firefox extension to auto-detect the page background color and set the text color to the polar opposite of that. Haven't done it yet, but I'm getting close.
I've been thinking of writing a Firefox extension to auto-detect the page background color and set the text color to the polar opposite of that. Haven't done it yet, but I'm getting close.
I'll do you one better, just use reader mode. It's the document looking icon in the url bar to the left of the bookmark button.
reader mode often gets past many 'subscribe to continue reading' overlays.
Is also my go-to to avoid clicking either 'accept all' or 'click here to read 10 pages of dark patterns to maybe disallow a few trackers' cookie modals.
There is an addon for this actually. Adjust colors for your own pleasure and press F2 (or whatever you want).
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dark-backgrou...
Thanks, this looks great. I'll give it a shot!
Just pushed an update - btw Cloudflare pages are fantastic its been perfection for a personal site.
Hmm I don't see any change yet but LOL if the 404s turn out to be my own fault due to a Workers bug. :)
https://3be909f6.personal-site-v4.pages.dev/ has the updated styles but the change doesnt seem to have propagated to domain yet (made the background pure white instead of grey)
Yeah that page looks much better, not just the colors but also the headings and paragraphs are now formatted correctly.
Crazily enough, it looks like the missing files are actually a problem on our (Cloudflare's) end. We're looking into it. But a re-deploy should fix it for now, I think.
Crazily enough, it looks like the missing files are actually a problem on our (Cloudflare's) end. We're looking into it. But a re-deploy should fix it for now, I think.
Hey Ben, we think your re-deploy solved the problem, but the old content is still being served from Cloudflare's cache for many people. Can you do a cache purge in the Cloudflare dashboard?
(It just updated for me, looks much better. But the old version might still be cached in some locations.)
The root cause was actually something we fixed last month, but it seems problems can stick around if the site was originally deployed before that fix... we're working on that.
(It just updated for me, looks much better. But the old version might still be cached in some locations.)
The root cause was actually something we fixed last month, but it seems problems can stick around if the site was originally deployed before that fix... we're working on that.
On further investigation we think this might have been purely a caching issue, not the backend problem we originally suspected.
The problem is that your site generator produces different file names for each version, but doesn't preserve the old files. So when you upload a new version, then the old version of the assets become 404, unless they happened to be cached. But it's possible the HTML is cached and the CSS not cached, in which case people will get the old HTML which refers to a CSS file that is now 404.
This is a classic problem and we need to find a better way to solve it. In principle, though, you could manually avoid it by preserving older versions of the CSS such that they continue to be served under new versions of the site.
Alternatively, if you change the config on your domain so that it doesn't cache at all (or at least turn off the "cache everything" option), and instead rely on Cloudflare Pages itself to manage caching, that also should mostly* avoid the problem. Pages does do its own caching, so adding a second layer of caching on top of that shouldn't be necessary.
* There's still a problem if someone is unlucky enough to load the site exactly when it's being updated, but at least a refresh fixes that. We need a better answer, though...
The problem is that your site generator produces different file names for each version, but doesn't preserve the old files. So when you upload a new version, then the old version of the assets become 404, unless they happened to be cached. But it's possible the HTML is cached and the CSS not cached, in which case people will get the old HTML which refers to a CSS file that is now 404.
This is a classic problem and we need to find a better way to solve it. In principle, though, you could manually avoid it by preserving older versions of the CSS such that they continue to be served under new versions of the site.
Alternatively, if you change the config on your domain so that it doesn't cache at all (or at least turn off the "cache everything" option), and instead rely on Cloudflare Pages itself to manage caching, that also should mostly* avoid the problem. Pages does do its own caching, so adding a second layer of caching on top of that shouldn't be necessary.
* There's still a problem if someone is unlucky enough to load the site exactly when it's being updated, but at least a refresh fixes that. We need a better answer, though...
Wow. Thanks for the explanation and for being humble in considering it (partially) your mistake.
I have to admit it was quite a plot twist, but this is why I love HN: we're both users and developers at the same time!
I have to admit it was quite a plot twist, but this is why I love HN: we're both users and developers at the same time!
Thanks for following up! Looks like that setting was on from an old version of the site. Probably not a super common thing for people who are onboarding to CF Pages (previously my origin was on AWS) and I migrated to Pages.
seconded -- great read / info also as user of Cloudflare Pages for multiple domains
Isn't that a default behavior for modern JavaScript SPAs: bundle all the frontend code into several files with unique hash names and refer them from generic html home page? Changing hash every time code changes?
Yes, which is why Pages has some dedicated logic to help preserve assets that were "seen in the last version now gone". Unfortunately, the "cache everything" setting at the CDN overrides that. We should probably be clearer about that in the docs, and potentially we could autodetect that setting when you register your custom domain, hmmm...
interesting read, thanks for sharing this
I'm curious, how do they compare against S3? (cheaper, easier to use, ...?)
I had my site fronted with CF previously w/ an origin on S3 and it cost about $0.53/mo (super cheap). CF Pages current pricing is free for unlimited bandwidth which is pretty incredible - https://pages.cloudflare.com/#pricing
The page presents as an almost pure black background, and almost 100% white text to me - about as high-contrast as you can get. Maybe this is a light/dark mode issue?
Yeah - on my phone it's WoB but on my desktop (which is dark mode) it's BoW
I think it is because the font is so thin it looks gray, even if the thin lines are made up of 100% white pixels. FireFox reader mode makes it readable though.
I don't have dark mode enabled. What I see seems to be the default style, and is consistent across multiple browsers for me.
Very interesting. This is what I see - https://i.imgur.com/eV4yDd0.png
Huh! It's more than just colors, you have padding between paragraphs whereas I don't. I think the page must not be loading correctly? I do see these two stylesheets returning 404:
https://benadam.me/assets/prisma-dark.19c66771.css
https://benadam.me/assets/work.b7de8a03.css
https://benadam.me/assets/prisma-dark.19c66771.css
https://benadam.me/assets/work.b7de8a03.css
The padding for the paragraphs is indeed coming from prisma-dark.css - that would explain it!
This is what I see: https://imgur.com/dN7nPOS . Almost unreadable after a few minutes, it's so faint.
This is almost exactly what I see on Edge 64-bit 96.0.1054.62, Windows 10 19042.1415
It's a surprisingly small world we've created
This kind of thing is why I love to be on HN. It's so interesting to be able to discuss technologies with the people that created them.
- it has an 8+ contrast ratio so I thought it would be ok (also been mostly working in dark mode) - will update. Thanks for your feedback.
I think some of the stylesheets are not loading correctly, I get 404 on these:
https://benadam.me/assets/prisma-dark.19c66771.css
https://benadam.me/assets/work.b7de8a03.css
https://benadam.me/assets/prisma-dark.19c66771.css
https://benadam.me/assets/work.b7de8a03.css
The weight was the problem for me. document.body.style.fontWeight=600 in the console made it readable.
It also has <p> styled with a zero margin, which makes things hard to read as well.
It also has <p> styled with a zero margin, which makes things hard to read as well.
This page is almost unreadable for me too -- a giant oil-spill of light gray text on a white background with no discernible headers, no spaces between paragraphs, etc. Brave, desktop, Version 1.33.106 Chromium: 96.0.4664.110 (Official Build) (arm64)
As a Cloudflare customer, I really like that you were comfortable just taking responsibility and jumping on it. That’s a healthy sign in an engineering group.
This is slightly similar to that moment when checking code and ask who is the dumb ass who wrote a certain piece just for git blame to show your name...
This happens with so many sites now... UI and 508 compliance seem to be going out the window lately... Almost thought I was goin blind. :(
I see a lot of these comments have taken to a kind of Amazon-bashing and venting their own experiences, where the author actually... didn't?
I thought the author was incredibly fair/objective, and at least the way I read it, it wasn't so much that he had such a miserable experience or could only stomach 10 months of pain/abuse (in fact if you actually read to the end, he praises his manager, his teammates, etc.), and more so that it only took him 10 months to realize that the company culture and way-of-working was not aligned with his personal preferences. He does have legitimate complaints about parts of his experience, and makes some keen observations about the consequences and tradeoffs of Amazon choosing to adopt the culture that it does (though I also think he's wrong about a few things too), but overall it's less of a "Amazon == bad" piece and more of a "this is why it wasn't to my taste" reflection.
Frankly, I would congratulate the author, and think of this as a success-story. Paraphrasing his own words, he learned a lot, met some good people, found some good practices that he's going to carry forward with him... isn't that a successful outcome (minus the annoyance of another round of job hunting, but hey in this market, another job hop is probably just an opportunity to level up comp, rather than an existential threat that you might be unemployed and starve)? Obviously the team/org he was in is suffering major attribution problems, and that's obviously a bad thing, but that's not his problem either.
Note: in case it wasn't clear, I do work within Amazon, but these opinions are my own, not representing my employer, blah blah
I thought the author was incredibly fair/objective, and at least the way I read it, it wasn't so much that he had such a miserable experience or could only stomach 10 months of pain/abuse (in fact if you actually read to the end, he praises his manager, his teammates, etc.), and more so that it only took him 10 months to realize that the company culture and way-of-working was not aligned with his personal preferences. He does have legitimate complaints about parts of his experience, and makes some keen observations about the consequences and tradeoffs of Amazon choosing to adopt the culture that it does (though I also think he's wrong about a few things too), but overall it's less of a "Amazon == bad" piece and more of a "this is why it wasn't to my taste" reflection.
Frankly, I would congratulate the author, and think of this as a success-story. Paraphrasing his own words, he learned a lot, met some good people, found some good practices that he's going to carry forward with him... isn't that a successful outcome (minus the annoyance of another round of job hunting, but hey in this market, another job hop is probably just an opportunity to level up comp, rather than an existential threat that you might be unemployed and starve)? Obviously the team/org he was in is suffering major attribution problems, and that's obviously a bad thing, but that's not his problem either.
Note: in case it wasn't clear, I do work within Amazon, but these opinions are my own, not representing my employer, blah blah
Paraphrasing his own words, he learned a lot, met some good people, found some good practices that he's going to carry forward with him... isn't that a successful outcome?
I agree that it definitely doesn't read like a straight tale of horror and abuse. But I don't see how can you sum it up it by saying "he found some good practices" when he takes care to point out, for example:
Everything is Urgent (but takes forever)
Sounds like a grind, day-in, day-out, with lots of made up stress.
Unfortunately, the majority of my time is spent doing “program” style work which leaves about 10% of my time for technical work. Ultimately this is not what I want to be doing with my career.
So the work sucked basically. And definitely wasn't what he was expecting.
One of the projects I was assigned to had an engineer who had never done web development (didn’t know HTTP, HTML, CSS or Javascript) was tasked with doing the front end system design for a React application (and the API that would power the UI).
Standard sweatshop practices, sounds like.
Oh and did we mention on-call? About which he says:
To be blunt: it sucks.
Which (among other reasons) is why he quit after 10 months. Which is definitely not a step to be taken lightly, because (aside from losing on the compensation) it basically amounts to a resume stain.
Now of course he said positive things as well, and it wasn't a simple condemnation of Amazon, by any stretch. But still -- it strikes me as rather strange that you are somehow able sum it up as "he had good things happen to him there" and it was a "succesful outcome".
To my ears, his experience there read like a very mixed bag.
My paraphrase of his report would be: "You learn a lot there, but it's a grind that will suck you dry before you know it."
I agree that it definitely doesn't read like a straight tale of horror and abuse. But I don't see how can you sum it up it by saying "he found some good practices" when he takes care to point out, for example:
Everything is Urgent (but takes forever)
Sounds like a grind, day-in, day-out, with lots of made up stress.
Unfortunately, the majority of my time is spent doing “program” style work which leaves about 10% of my time for technical work. Ultimately this is not what I want to be doing with my career.
So the work sucked basically. And definitely wasn't what he was expecting.
One of the projects I was assigned to had an engineer who had never done web development (didn’t know HTTP, HTML, CSS or Javascript) was tasked with doing the front end system design for a React application (and the API that would power the UI).
Standard sweatshop practices, sounds like.
Oh and did we mention on-call? About which he says:
To be blunt: it sucks.
Which (among other reasons) is why he quit after 10 months. Which is definitely not a step to be taken lightly, because (aside from losing on the compensation) it basically amounts to a resume stain.
Now of course he said positive things as well, and it wasn't a simple condemnation of Amazon, by any stretch. But still -- it strikes me as rather strange that you are somehow able sum it up as "he had good things happen to him there" and it was a "succesful outcome".
To my ears, his experience there read like a very mixed bag.
My paraphrase of his report would be: "You learn a lot there, but it's a grind that will suck you dry before you know it."
The good practices I was referring to, were things like: his praise of the documentation culture, the obsession with data security (which I read as a good thing, on behalf of customers). Of course you are right that it was definitely a mixed bag.
Your paraphrase isn't wrong either, but I would suggest a modification to it: "it will suck you dry, if either (1) you don't fit in with the company culture, or (2) you are placed in a bad situation on a team with poor leadership and high attrition".
Perhaps shockingly, not every team at Amazon is constantly quitting (e.g. my direct team in the last two years has had 1 person voluntarily leave for a better opportunity - and we wished them well, and 0 attrition otherwise), and also some people actually appreciate and gravitate towards some things like, what the author calls "team are fragile" culture (because it is in fact a kind of durability/resiliency that there is less reliance on special rockstars, irreplaceable dependencies, and that teams can be fluid but the product mostly works/lives-on).
Your paraphrase isn't wrong either, but I would suggest a modification to it: "it will suck you dry, if either (1) you don't fit in with the company culture, or (2) you are placed in a bad situation on a team with poor leadership and high attrition".
Perhaps shockingly, not every team at Amazon is constantly quitting (e.g. my direct team in the last two years has had 1 person voluntarily leave for a better opportunity - and we wished them well, and 0 attrition otherwise), and also some people actually appreciate and gravitate towards some things like, what the author calls "team are fragile" culture (because it is in fact a kind of durability/resiliency that there is less reliance on special rockstars, irreplaceable dependencies, and that teams can be fluid but the product mostly works/lives-on).
I appreciate your comment and the nuance it brings to the conversation, but I also wonder if some of this is a distinction without a difference.
Isn't the only difference between the Amazon-bashing and OP's take just a matter of delivery, tact and perspective? I personally prefer a communication style that doesn't involve bashing, and I would probably choose to write a post much like the OP, but I think it's also very charitable to Amazon, almost to a fault.
For example, section 3: "Everything is Urgent (but takes forever)" resonates with me deeply, because many of the issues described are similar to the issues I face at a different platform company. These issues weren't always present (I've been here long enough to see the growing pains evolve), and my conclusion isn't "this just isn't the right place for me", but rather "the company is trying to continue operating in a manner that only works in small orgs, and must make deep fundamental changes going forward". Now, to be fair, if that change doesn't happen, then it does become a place that "isn't for me".
But "This isn't for me" implies it's a matter of personal preference, and perfectly fine for some folks, but some of these issues are deep, fundamental problems that must be solved and likely require changes in the org or every person who takes that role going forward will reach the same conclusion (or someone who's too desperate to care will just deal with it). That doesn't make the underlying problem go away.
Realizing that a place isn't for you and thinking about it that way is arguably healthier than getting angry about it and staying in that environment. But the reason that place isn't for you might still stem from organizational issues that make Amazon (or any company with similar problems) arguably "not the right place" for just about anyone.
Isn't the only difference between the Amazon-bashing and OP's take just a matter of delivery, tact and perspective? I personally prefer a communication style that doesn't involve bashing, and I would probably choose to write a post much like the OP, but I think it's also very charitable to Amazon, almost to a fault.
For example, section 3: "Everything is Urgent (but takes forever)" resonates with me deeply, because many of the issues described are similar to the issues I face at a different platform company. These issues weren't always present (I've been here long enough to see the growing pains evolve), and my conclusion isn't "this just isn't the right place for me", but rather "the company is trying to continue operating in a manner that only works in small orgs, and must make deep fundamental changes going forward". Now, to be fair, if that change doesn't happen, then it does become a place that "isn't for me".
But "This isn't for me" implies it's a matter of personal preference, and perfectly fine for some folks, but some of these issues are deep, fundamental problems that must be solved and likely require changes in the org or every person who takes that role going forward will reach the same conclusion (or someone who's too desperate to care will just deal with it). That doesn't make the underlying problem go away.
Realizing that a place isn't for you and thinking about it that way is arguably healthier than getting angry about it and staying in that environment. But the reason that place isn't for you might still stem from organizational issues that make Amazon (or any company with similar problems) arguably "not the right place" for just about anyone.
Well, it's definitely a distinction with a difference for the OP. If I were a hiring manager and came across his resume and the name rang a bell, and I dug up this blog post, I would have no qualms about re-hiring him at Amazon despite the short tenure (assuming I could earn the author's trust that my hypothetical new team isn't as chaotic/on-fire as what he experienced before). His ability to communicate with tact and perspective, speaks to his strong judgement and professionalism, and makes me more personally inclined to hire/re-hire him in the future (of course, he gets to decide if he's ever willing to take the plunge again).
As for whether this indicates deep flaws that it might not be the right place for just about anyone... well I think there is the existence proof that Amazon employs 10k's/100k's of people, and while it may have higher attrition than peers (does it? I don't actually know, but I'm willing to take that on faith), still at least a sizeable majority is relatively satisfied with their careers here (based on internal tech survey results). So, "not right for anyone" is definitely an over-exaggeration.
Not right for you, if you are the type of person who shares personality traits and career goals/preferences as the author? Sure, quite possibly.
As for whether this indicates deep flaws that it might not be the right place for just about anyone... well I think there is the existence proof that Amazon employs 10k's/100k's of people, and while it may have higher attrition than peers (does it? I don't actually know, but I'm willing to take that on faith), still at least a sizeable majority is relatively satisfied with their careers here (based on internal tech survey results). So, "not right for anyone" is definitely an over-exaggeration.
Not right for you, if you are the type of person who shares personality traits and career goals/preferences as the author? Sure, quite possibly.
> Well, it's definitely a distinction with a difference for the OP
In terms of OP's public persona, absolutely. And as I said, he writes the kind of post I'd probably write in that situation.
I was referring to how the HN community often discusses Amazon, which generally happens anonymously. In this setting, someone ranting and raving about issues at Amazon and someone politely spelling out those issues at Amazon don't result in very different outcomes (I say this while appreciating a well reasoned response over a fiery/impassioned response).
Employing 10k's/100k's of people does not imply that problems don't exist, or should not be addressed. The restaurant industry employees millions, and yet it's fairly well known that the industry is rife with problems, and the Anti Work movement is a manifestation of that. I don't think it's useful to conclude "well, only work in a restaurant if you are compatible with those conditions". The industry needs to change.
> Not right for you, if you are the type of person who shares personality traits and career goals/preferences as the author? Sure, quite possibly.
Many of the problems the author describes are not a matter of personal preference. They are an indication of organizational dysfunction.
Are some people better suited to work in a dysfunctional org? Sure. Does that mean the org should focus on hiring compatible people over fixing that dysfunction? That's certainly one possible approach. An approach that leads to a continuation of those problems, exacerbating them until only people who fit those "preferences" can possibly succeed.
I'm personally predisposed to stay in bad situations and deal with shitty leadership/environments thanks to years of conditioning via a very traumatic childhood. It's what I know, and so I can do it well. My ability to operate in such conditions doesn't mean the conditions are acceptable.
In terms of OP's public persona, absolutely. And as I said, he writes the kind of post I'd probably write in that situation.
I was referring to how the HN community often discusses Amazon, which generally happens anonymously. In this setting, someone ranting and raving about issues at Amazon and someone politely spelling out those issues at Amazon don't result in very different outcomes (I say this while appreciating a well reasoned response over a fiery/impassioned response).
Employing 10k's/100k's of people does not imply that problems don't exist, or should not be addressed. The restaurant industry employees millions, and yet it's fairly well known that the industry is rife with problems, and the Anti Work movement is a manifestation of that. I don't think it's useful to conclude "well, only work in a restaurant if you are compatible with those conditions". The industry needs to change.
> Not right for you, if you are the type of person who shares personality traits and career goals/preferences as the author? Sure, quite possibly.
Many of the problems the author describes are not a matter of personal preference. They are an indication of organizational dysfunction.
Are some people better suited to work in a dysfunctional org? Sure. Does that mean the org should focus on hiring compatible people over fixing that dysfunction? That's certainly one possible approach. An approach that leads to a continuation of those problems, exacerbating them until only people who fit those "preferences" can possibly succeed.
I'm personally predisposed to stay in bad situations and deal with shitty leadership/environments thanks to years of conditioning via a very traumatic childhood. It's what I know, and so I can do it well. My ability to operate in such conditions doesn't mean the conditions are acceptable.
I disagree with your writing off the whole thing with the single diagnosis of "organizational dysfunction." I'll explain why, but I'm not really trying to convince you, because I sense we are starting from perspectives that are too far apart to come to an agreement.
Some of the things the author observes, like having 56 different frameworks that roughly do the same thing, or so many business processes running in Excel, are really not about dysfunction, and are actually "by design", but in a nuanced way.
Amazon has a strong thesis about how organizations should function and how they should execute work / produce useful outputs, and part of that thesis is, to be incredibly and nigh-unbelievably averse to coordination costs. You can also think of this as, a consequence of the frugality mindset leading to an aversion against premature optimization. Yes, it is wasteful to some degree to have 56 different frameworks, but OTOH, the ROI of spending the effort to consolidate them, simply isn't there to justify fixing it... if it takes a team of 2-3 engineers 6 months to consolidate it, well guess what, in the same time, that same team of engineers could launch a $10M-$100M business opportunity (seriously). And trying to put a single central team in charge of maintaining a universal framework that can support all current and future needs forever, simply never works out (eliminating gatekeepers is a common refrain, in service of moving faster). Compared against the ROI of actually delivering value to customers, who cares about some extra frameworks?
Or put it another way: Amazon does not optimize for waste elimination, or "cleanliness" of organization, or unity of purpose; Amazon optimizes for deploying capital (in the form of launching software/services/products) as quickly as possible across as many opportunities as possible, and then rapidly evaluating and doubling down on winners. Is there waste? Absolutely (I mean, what VC has a 100% hit rate?)! Does it seem dysfunctional? Probably. Is this way of working effective (meaning, does it actually function at achieving the goals of the organization)? I think the growth of Amazon in the past 20+ years speaks for itself.
Does this way of working put people/employees first, or optimize for their happiness/well-being? No, not particularly, but neither do many industries (investment banks, public school teachers, or as you point out, the restaurant industry.). Should that be fixed or at least improved? Well, I'd like to think that's why I'm here, and also why post-retirement Bezos has pivoted to working on making Amazon "Earth's best employer" [1] (which is a significant shift from the original focus of being, "Earth's most customer centric company"). I realize those sound like platitudes, but it actually is a meaningful statement, showing a reallocation of energy/focus between customers vs employees.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeff-bezos-amazon-employee-care...
---
EDIT: One further thing I wanted to clarify: if I am arguing in favor of anything, it is that Amazon as a whole organism, is far from dysfunctional at the macro level. But if you zoom in to individual pockets, individual orgs or teams, then yes absolutely there are many, many bad leaders, bad managers, poorly planned roadmaps, over-burdened/over-allocated engineers, terrible on-call cycles, etc., like what the author of this post observed. You are always taking a risk when joining Amazon, that you might end up in one of these bad situations. How high is that risk? Without trying to be overly precise, I would venture that it's closer to 80% good and 20% bad, then vice versa (but you don't have to believe me).
Another curious thing I've learned to appreciate in my team here, is that there is practically no other company in the world, where you would get the opportunity to learn how to operate a culture like this, at this scale, with this level of effectiveness (imperfect though it may be). How valuable or translatable is that experience though, I'm not sure... it's not like I can feasibly take my knowledge, and start up an Amazon-killer, or really get the opportunity to exercise my knowledge of how to design a company culture like-this-but-better, at this type of scale. But it sure is fascinating to watch it tick, from the inside.
Some of the things the author observes, like having 56 different frameworks that roughly do the same thing, or so many business processes running in Excel, are really not about dysfunction, and are actually "by design", but in a nuanced way.
Amazon has a strong thesis about how organizations should function and how they should execute work / produce useful outputs, and part of that thesis is, to be incredibly and nigh-unbelievably averse to coordination costs. You can also think of this as, a consequence of the frugality mindset leading to an aversion against premature optimization. Yes, it is wasteful to some degree to have 56 different frameworks, but OTOH, the ROI of spending the effort to consolidate them, simply isn't there to justify fixing it... if it takes a team of 2-3 engineers 6 months to consolidate it, well guess what, in the same time, that same team of engineers could launch a $10M-$100M business opportunity (seriously). And trying to put a single central team in charge of maintaining a universal framework that can support all current and future needs forever, simply never works out (eliminating gatekeepers is a common refrain, in service of moving faster). Compared against the ROI of actually delivering value to customers, who cares about some extra frameworks?
Or put it another way: Amazon does not optimize for waste elimination, or "cleanliness" of organization, or unity of purpose; Amazon optimizes for deploying capital (in the form of launching software/services/products) as quickly as possible across as many opportunities as possible, and then rapidly evaluating and doubling down on winners. Is there waste? Absolutely (I mean, what VC has a 100% hit rate?)! Does it seem dysfunctional? Probably. Is this way of working effective (meaning, does it actually function at achieving the goals of the organization)? I think the growth of Amazon in the past 20+ years speaks for itself.
Does this way of working put people/employees first, or optimize for their happiness/well-being? No, not particularly, but neither do many industries (investment banks, public school teachers, or as you point out, the restaurant industry.). Should that be fixed or at least improved? Well, I'd like to think that's why I'm here, and also why post-retirement Bezos has pivoted to working on making Amazon "Earth's best employer" [1] (which is a significant shift from the original focus of being, "Earth's most customer centric company"). I realize those sound like platitudes, but it actually is a meaningful statement, showing a reallocation of energy/focus between customers vs employees.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeff-bezos-amazon-employee-care...
---
EDIT: One further thing I wanted to clarify: if I am arguing in favor of anything, it is that Amazon as a whole organism, is far from dysfunctional at the macro level. But if you zoom in to individual pockets, individual orgs or teams, then yes absolutely there are many, many bad leaders, bad managers, poorly planned roadmaps, over-burdened/over-allocated engineers, terrible on-call cycles, etc., like what the author of this post observed. You are always taking a risk when joining Amazon, that you might end up in one of these bad situations. How high is that risk? Without trying to be overly precise, I would venture that it's closer to 80% good and 20% bad, then vice versa (but you don't have to believe me).
Another curious thing I've learned to appreciate in my team here, is that there is practically no other company in the world, where you would get the opportunity to learn how to operate a culture like this, at this scale, with this level of effectiveness (imperfect though it may be). How valuable or translatable is that experience though, I'm not sure... it's not like I can feasibly take my knowledge, and start up an Amazon-killer, or really get the opportunity to exercise my knowledge of how to design a company culture like-this-but-better, at this type of scale. But it sure is fascinating to watch it tick, from the inside.
My use of the word "dysfunction" isn't about company output, but the cost of that output. Cost that includes human capital. I acknowledge that it's a lot more complicated than just simply "dysfunction".
I'm not questioning whether or not Amazon is successful. That is clear. My own employer is also doing extremely well in the market. The internal "dysfunction" remains. To your point, if you define success by output, and ignore the human cost, many companies/industries are "successful".
Maybe a word other than "dysfunction" is needed here, but my goal is to try to distinguish between "this business is successful" and "working there is a nightmare for xyz reasons".
When cost is measured purely in terms of dollars, it's easier to evaluate the appropriateness of that cost.
When cost is measured in people, it's a bit harder to evaluate what's acceptable/what's not.
The Restaurant/Education job markets are fundamentally broken, but also very necessary, and by some measures, successful. But we can examine success/output separately from the underlying issues that are rampant.
I'm not questioning whether or not Amazon is successful. That is clear. My own employer is also doing extremely well in the market. The internal "dysfunction" remains. To your point, if you define success by output, and ignore the human cost, many companies/industries are "successful".
Maybe a word other than "dysfunction" is needed here, but my goal is to try to distinguish between "this business is successful" and "working there is a nightmare for xyz reasons".
When cost is measured purely in terms of dollars, it's easier to evaluate the appropriateness of that cost.
When cost is measured in people, it's a bit harder to evaluate what's acceptable/what's not.
The Restaurant/Education job markets are fundamentally broken, but also very necessary, and by some measures, successful. But we can examine success/output separately from the underlying issues that are rampant.
Really glad it came across that way (that was definitely my intent).
>I see a lot of these comments have taken to a kind of Amazon-bashing and venting their own experiences, where the author actually... didn't?
Nobody is dumb enough to write a blog post trashing Amazon under their own name. He wants to be able to get another job.
Nobody is dumb enough to write a blog post trashing Amazon under their own name. He wants to be able to get another job.
I feel the same way. But this "bashing" is good, maybe they(Amazon) see it everywhere and make them change for the better(at least a tiny bit).
People on this forum are usually too good to find problems within. With folks here, usually the other party is always at fault.
The company who ordered people back to the floor when a hurricane was coming causing their death when the building partially collapsed, has people pissing in bottles to meet insane work quotas, stack ranks employees, flys drones over delivery trucks to surveil drivers to ensure efficiency, repeatedly busts union efforts, might run through literally every available American because the churn at it's distribution centers is so high, uses its platform data to compete with it's suppliers, and whose founder Bezos is one of the richest men to ever live who built himself a literal space craft while income inequality is higher than during the French Revolution?
Are you absolutely sure that there are no legitimate problems with Amazon, or that maybe we're a little itchy with Amazon for a reason?
Are you absolutely sure that there are no legitimate problems with Amazon, or that maybe we're a little itchy with Amazon for a reason?
> The company who ordered people back to the floor when a hurricane was coming causing their death when the building partially collapsed
Question about this specifically. Was it ever revealed if that order was to get people indoors to a reinforced building that happened to collapse? I remember SMS screenshots of a delivery driver who was killed, and to have sent him on the road would have been a death sentence.
Question about this specifically. Was it ever revealed if that order was to get people indoors to a reinforced building that happened to collapse? I remember SMS screenshots of a delivery driver who was killed, and to have sent him on the road would have been a death sentence.
If the rest of the parent's comment wasn't already true beforehand, then maybe we could assume good faith.
That’s an exceedingly charitable stance to take, because the actual proper thing to do would have been to send people home before the storm hit, and possibly give them the option of sheltering in the warehouse if they needed to (assuming it was actually reinforced).
I can see why you'd say that. It's not charitable thinking. I'm thinking it's part of a standard inclement weather plan. Everyone works as usual. If there's a tornado watch, employees don't come in to keep them from being caught in a tornado. Hold employees in approved safety area under a tornado warning (e.g. reinforced building, not open warehouse), because sending them home is a clear danger.
The irony-meter just exploded
I also left Amazon after ~10mo. I've written about this elsewhere, but the short version is:
* New manager who was a nice guy but didn't help me or other folks onboard
* A skip-level (who I expected would be my direct) manager who was about as hands-off as could be and seemed interested in building his own empire.
* SDE3 who was nominally my mentor but was less than useless. I asked him to whiteboard our services, and he said he "didn't know" what we owned. I asked him for help configuring a monitor for a service, and he said he couldn't figure it out while literally backing away from my desk slowly.
* A culture within our team in which no one was willing or able to help others out. It was very much every man for himself.
I GTFO of there and have been happy across the lake since. Paying back my signing bonus was well worth the significant reduction in stress and quality of life.
* New manager who was a nice guy but didn't help me or other folks onboard
* A skip-level (who I expected would be my direct) manager who was about as hands-off as could be and seemed interested in building his own empire.
* SDE3 who was nominally my mentor but was less than useless. I asked him to whiteboard our services, and he said he "didn't know" what we owned. I asked him for help configuring a monitor for a service, and he said he couldn't figure it out while literally backing away from my desk slowly.
* A culture within our team in which no one was willing or able to help others out. It was very much every man for himself.
I GTFO of there and have been happy across the lake since. Paying back my signing bonus was well worth the significant reduction in stress and quality of life.
Friend is a recruiter at that company across the lake and says she reaches out to Amazon folks when they hit the 1 and 2 year marks a lot - says she gets relatively higher response rates than industry standards when she does that.
What's the company across the lake - Microsoft?
Assuming the lake is Lake Washington, it looks like it.
Almost surely
was the sde3 just faking ignorance so he didn't have to help you out?
Possibly making sure that GP was at the bottom of the stack rank and looking out for his own neck.
That's what I assume his motives were.
Oof that sounds super devious.
Not really. It's just a human responding to the incentives they're given. When management creates poor incentive structures, they get poor behavior, which drives poor outcomes.
As they say - the problem with incentives is that they work.
As they say - the problem with incentives is that they work.
Or to say a different way - don't hate the player, hate the game.
more like you get a system where only sociopaths will remain because everyone else will just get a new job
What do you do when that system successfully creates a $2 trillion empire that seems to only be getting stronger and more established?
The larger meta game of civilization obviously rewards this kind of subsystem, so again...
Don't hate the player (Amazon's toxic corporate culture), hate the game (the civilization that rewards them with dominance).
The larger meta game of civilization obviously rewards this kind of subsystem, so again...
Don't hate the player (Amazon's toxic corporate culture), hate the game (the civilization that rewards them with dominance).
Isn't this just Capitalism gaslighting us into being shitty people, and allowing shitty behavior?
Like we say "well that's the incentive" like that makes it ok?
Like we say "well that's the incentive" like that makes it ok?
> The churn I experienced was significant
One thing I don't see mentioned enough is the forced PIP policy.
Basically every manager is forced to stack-rank their entire team, and the bottom N percent is put on a PIP. So even if your entire team is comprised of very top-notch engineers you will see forced attrition. It also disincentivizes helping team-members in deep ways and incentivizes back-stabbing politics.
Of course every org/VP has some latitude, but this is a common principle adopted by many VPs to appease the "bar raiser" standards as well as giving enough motivation to axe employees with considerable equity despite how good they may be on an absolute scale.
This was the policy at a number of orgs when I was there 5 years ago, and I have heard similar stories as recently as 2019 pre-covid.
One thing I don't see mentioned enough is the forced PIP policy.
Basically every manager is forced to stack-rank their entire team, and the bottom N percent is put on a PIP. So even if your entire team is comprised of very top-notch engineers you will see forced attrition. It also disincentivizes helping team-members in deep ways and incentivizes back-stabbing politics.
Of course every org/VP has some latitude, but this is a common principle adopted by many VPs to appease the "bar raiser" standards as well as giving enough motivation to axe employees with considerable equity despite how good they may be on an absolute scale.
This was the policy at a number of orgs when I was there 5 years ago, and I have heard similar stories as recently as 2019 pre-covid.
> Basically every manager is forced to stack-rank their entire team, and the bottom N percent is put on a PIP. So even if your entire team is comprised of very top-notch engineers you will see forced attrition.
I've heard this leads to a "hire to fire" strategy: managers hire some schmuck that's not expected to succeed in order to protect the rest of the team from the policy.
Which is another reason I'd never touch Amazon with a ten-foot pole: it's not worth the risk of getting used and abused like that (on top of all the other issues).
I've heard this leads to a "hire to fire" strategy: managers hire some schmuck that's not expected to succeed in order to protect the rest of the team from the policy.
Which is another reason I'd never touch Amazon with a ten-foot pole: it's not worth the risk of getting used and abused like that (on top of all the other issues).
Six months of a six figure salary to take an on-the-job sabbatical sounds like a pretty good deal, from a certain point of view. It's a shame the hiring managers in question are unlikely to be transparent about the role's actual requirements.
> Six months of a six figure salary to take an on-the-job sabbatical sounds like a pretty good deal, from a certain point of view. It's a shame the hiring managers in question are unlikely to be transparent about the role's actual requirements.
I agree, but the managers are gaming the system so there's no way they could be transparent about it. As a new hire, it would be a huge punch in the gut to be setup for failure like this and not be in on it from the start.
I agree, but the managers are gaming the system so there's no way they could be transparent about it. As a new hire, it would be a huge punch in the gut to be setup for failure like this and not be in on it from the start.
Counter-point (and I'm a manager):
Every single team I've managed, I've given the lowest performers a huge benefit of the doubt, and a long timeline for improvement. In some cases, it wound up being a PIP->firing. But more often than not, I wind up trying one thing after another with the lowest performers, because I so much want to believe in them. They're always nice people, but they don't deliver. They say "I'm working on X... I'm still working on X... Will have something ready in 2 weeks... I hit a blocker, it'll be another 2 weeks." And I try to help them, unblock them, mentor them, reassign them to some other task that might be better suited. But the harsh reality is that many many people are just not good developers, no matter how much you both want them to be.
So on every team I've ever managed, if I'd been forced to put the lowest performer on a PIP, it would have been good for the whole team. And I think I'm probably not alone in this.
(Of course, this applies only to a limit. At some point, you've eliminated the actual low-performers, and shouldn't ever manufacture a PIP just to meet a numbrs threshold.)
Every single team I've managed, I've given the lowest performers a huge benefit of the doubt, and a long timeline for improvement. In some cases, it wound up being a PIP->firing. But more often than not, I wind up trying one thing after another with the lowest performers, because I so much want to believe in them. They're always nice people, but they don't deliver. They say "I'm working on X... I'm still working on X... Will have something ready in 2 weeks... I hit a blocker, it'll be another 2 weeks." And I try to help them, unblock them, mentor them, reassign them to some other task that might be better suited. But the harsh reality is that many many people are just not good developers, no matter how much you both want them to be.
So on every team I've ever managed, if I'd been forced to put the lowest performer on a PIP, it would have been good for the whole team. And I think I'm probably not alone in this.
(Of course, this applies only to a limit. At some point, you've eliminated the actual low-performers, and shouldn't ever manufacture a PIP just to meet a numbrs threshold.)
As a one-time thing, sure, stack rank is likely to be fairly effective. But what would have happened on your team if you had to get rid of your lowest performer every year?
Would suck, for sure.
In fact, for a couple of quarters, I was asked to name the lowest performer on my team, and then that person got ranked as one of the lowest performers across my manager's org, and it put me in a shitty situation as a manager because the engineer wasn't actually at PIP stage yet (and we didn't ever go to PIP) but it basically soiled their chance of being promoted for however long the other managers will remember seeing that name on the "low performer" list.
In fact, for a couple of quarters, I was asked to name the lowest performer on my team, and then that person got ranked as one of the lowest performers across my manager's org, and it put me in a shitty situation as a manager because the engineer wasn't actually at PIP stage yet (and we didn't ever go to PIP) but it basically soiled their chance of being promoted for however long the other managers will remember seeing that name on the "low performer" list.
>Basically every manager is forced to stack-rank their entire team, and the bottom N percent is put on a PIP. So even if your entire team is comprised of very top-notch engineers you will see forced attrition.
That sounds like a huge disincentive to mentoring and developing your team.
That sounds like a huge disincentive to mentoring and developing your team.
> That sounds like a huge disincentive to mentoring and developing your team.
I've heard there are huge communication issues within teams, thanks to policies like this. You have to look out for yourself first and foremost, otherwise you are up next for the stack ranking. Better to sabotage your team mate's onboarding than risk being next in line for the firing squad.
It's actually worse, because it's actually a "unregretted attrition" (URA) quota - which Amazon HR has spent decades developing into a sinister fear-based culture. They have a secret "FOCUS list" (used to be called devlist) which managers don't even tell their directs they are on. A secret list which if employees leave while they are on it (and remember, they don't even know they are on it), they are marked as URA and cannot be re-hired. HR directs managers explicitly not to tell employees they are on this list. Many employees only find out once they try to switch teams and are blocked due to being on these secret lists.
It fosters a culture of fear, uncertainty, and doubt - combine that with overly political managers fighting for their own lives, and Amazon can be a brutal place to work. The best teams are those that shield you from all these politics, but when push comes to shove managers are forced to make these URA decisions constantly.
Bezos believed his employees were inherently lazy and needed these types of mechanisms to scare them into doing their best work. Now that Amazon is the size it is, you can find crazy and absurd anecdotes of these policies being twisted into some truly bizarre Kafkaesque situations - like managers hiring individuals solely to fill the URA quota, and team members sabotaging onboarding on new members to try to avoid the firing squads themselves.
I've heard there are huge communication issues within teams, thanks to policies like this. You have to look out for yourself first and foremost, otherwise you are up next for the stack ranking. Better to sabotage your team mate's onboarding than risk being next in line for the firing squad.
It's actually worse, because it's actually a "unregretted attrition" (URA) quota - which Amazon HR has spent decades developing into a sinister fear-based culture. They have a secret "FOCUS list" (used to be called devlist) which managers don't even tell their directs they are on. A secret list which if employees leave while they are on it (and remember, they don't even know they are on it), they are marked as URA and cannot be re-hired. HR directs managers explicitly not to tell employees they are on this list. Many employees only find out once they try to switch teams and are blocked due to being on these secret lists.
It fosters a culture of fear, uncertainty, and doubt - combine that with overly political managers fighting for their own lives, and Amazon can be a brutal place to work. The best teams are those that shield you from all these politics, but when push comes to shove managers are forced to make these URA decisions constantly.
Bezos believed his employees were inherently lazy and needed these types of mechanisms to scare them into doing their best work. Now that Amazon is the size it is, you can find crazy and absurd anecdotes of these policies being twisted into some truly bizarre Kafkaesque situations - like managers hiring individuals solely to fill the URA quota, and team members sabotaging onboarding on new members to try to avoid the firing squads themselves.
Blows my mind that there are so many people that voluntarily choose to join a company like this. Sounds completely dystopian.
And all these sounds to me that devs at Amazon needs unionization rather faster than the poor workers in their warehouses.
As bad as it is for any developer at Amazon, I have to say that I'm going to feel more sympathy for the people in the warehouse who are told to get back to work when a line worker dies of a heart attack in the middle of their shift due to stress than any developer who can always leave and get a fine job somewhere else. The precariat in those warehouses need collective bargaining more than any developer, anywhere (except for maybe game developers).
A dev's work is mental, a warehouse work is physical. I agree that the worker on warehouse have it tough, no denying there. However mental recovery takes longer that physical one.
I have a joke for you, goes something like this: "Big rich guy goes to Mexico for vacation. There he meets Julio, a simple worker who after work is drinking in the bar with his friends and enjoys a simple life. Rich guy asks why Julio doesn't work longer & harder to make more money.
Why?
So when you grow older to have time, like me, to enjoy life and party with friends.
I can party with my friends right now and enjoy life just as well"
I have a joke for you, goes something like this: "Big rich guy goes to Mexico for vacation. There he meets Julio, a simple worker who after work is drinking in the bar with his friends and enjoys a simple life. Rich guy asks why Julio doesn't work longer & harder to make more money.
Why?
So when you grow older to have time, like me, to enjoy life and party with friends.
I can party with my friends right now and enjoy life just as well"
You've never seen Amazon warehouse work if you think it's not mental and physical.
A story I don't really tell people is about my 3 days working at an Amazon warehouse.
The short version is, I'm a self-taught dev who didn't realize he was good enough to be a full time dev (spoiler as an L6 making >500k TC, I was!)
So I applied to a few labor jobs: Amazon Warehouse, pushing carts at WalMart, etc.
And a few dev jobs: Nothing fancy, a few local dev shops looking for a mobile dev.
-
I get a job with a local dev shop, but I'm still not sure I can actually make it there. So I still take my Amazon Warehouse job thinking I can work both somehow... I fell asleep at my computer on my first day at the office, which is why I only worked at that warehouse for 3 days.
But those 3 days are permanently etched in my mind. BDL5, I still recognize it looking at random Amazon deliveries when I visit my parents.
I'm not sure what it is about that place that makes me slightly sick to even recall, I think it's a mixture of:
- The awful lighting. That place was lit in this sickly blue light that made you feel sleepy and wide awake at the same time, and stuck with you after you went outside
- The noise: BDL5 is a sort center. It's tiny compared to a normal fulfillment center. And it was still constantly noisy. Something like 3 acres of open warehouse, miles of conveyer belts, constant truck loading and unloading.
- The nature of the work: I think part of what makes me sick thinking about it is how depressingly menial the work was. Again, I was only there 3 days, but it's a nightmare to imagine standing on your feet for hours wrestling with comically large shrink wrap rolls for a living. Or packing useless crap into a truck for hours on end. I don't believe humans were meant for that kind of repetition. This was when BDL5 first opened and you could see how uneasy people seemed to get as the weight of the work landed on them.
-
Amazon is such a depressing company. I mean I know all of this and of course, and I still use Amazon, it's just that ubiquitous and all-encompassing (although not as much lately)
It's just reached this point where something needs to give. I'm ok with not being able to place orders at 4 AM and getting them before 8PM. We'll live if 2 day shipping becomes 3 and that allows some shorter shifts for the same pay.
But yeah, devs have it easy compared to all that.
A story I don't really tell people is about my 3 days working at an Amazon warehouse.
The short version is, I'm a self-taught dev who didn't realize he was good enough to be a full time dev (spoiler as an L6 making >500k TC, I was!)
So I applied to a few labor jobs: Amazon Warehouse, pushing carts at WalMart, etc.
And a few dev jobs: Nothing fancy, a few local dev shops looking for a mobile dev.
-
I get a job with a local dev shop, but I'm still not sure I can actually make it there. So I still take my Amazon Warehouse job thinking I can work both somehow... I fell asleep at my computer on my first day at the office, which is why I only worked at that warehouse for 3 days.
But those 3 days are permanently etched in my mind. BDL5, I still recognize it looking at random Amazon deliveries when I visit my parents.
I'm not sure what it is about that place that makes me slightly sick to even recall, I think it's a mixture of:
- The awful lighting. That place was lit in this sickly blue light that made you feel sleepy and wide awake at the same time, and stuck with you after you went outside
- The noise: BDL5 is a sort center. It's tiny compared to a normal fulfillment center. And it was still constantly noisy. Something like 3 acres of open warehouse, miles of conveyer belts, constant truck loading and unloading.
- The nature of the work: I think part of what makes me sick thinking about it is how depressingly menial the work was. Again, I was only there 3 days, but it's a nightmare to imagine standing on your feet for hours wrestling with comically large shrink wrap rolls for a living. Or packing useless crap into a truck for hours on end. I don't believe humans were meant for that kind of repetition. This was when BDL5 first opened and you could see how uneasy people seemed to get as the weight of the work landed on them.
-
Amazon is such a depressing company. I mean I know all of this and of course, and I still use Amazon, it's just that ubiquitous and all-encompassing (although not as much lately)
It's just reached this point where something needs to give. I'm ok with not being able to place orders at 4 AM and getting them before 8PM. We'll live if 2 day shipping becomes 3 and that allows some shorter shifts for the same pay.
But yeah, devs have it easy compared to all that.
Wow, I thought the horror stories out of MSFT had put an end to stack-ranking forced-PIP evaluations. It seems incredibly counter productive, and leads to things like hire-to-fire that are just indefensible.
Having a team where everyone is excelling is a GOOD thing in most orgs, right?
Having a team where everyone is excelling is a GOOD thing in most orgs, right?
What would be the rationale behind this? In their ideal world, why do they need it?
Every company over a certain size will have stack ranking or something like it. Division leaders and VPs need an available knife to stick in the backs of their rivals. If stack ranking or URA doesn't exist, then they'll use a down quarter to create it, ("With the economy the way it is, we have to do some belt-tightening") then wield it to destroy their enemies.
If all the VPs are cheerful, happy, nice guys, then someone will emerge from the lower ranks to overthrow the weakest member. From there, the bloodbath begins.
If all the VPs are cheerful, happy, nice guys, then someone will emerge from the lower ranks to overthrow the weakest member. From there, the bloodbath begins.
What is "URA" here?
"Unregretted attrition", Amazon internal jargon that mandates firing 6% of all employees every year: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-tracks-unregretted-at...
This program is obviously not applied uniformly. It's purpose is to be bent to eliminate divisions that lose internal political battles.
This program is obviously not applied uniformly. It's purpose is to be bent to eliminate divisions that lose internal political battles.
Now that is a spectacular euphemism. That term sounds like something out of the movie "Office Space."
Lazy thinking, IMO. It's the sort of concept a child might come up with because it is so "simple". If you think about it for more than 5 minutes you see the problem, but it's too late, the lazy thinkers have mandated it.
Blame it on Jack Welch[1]. I can't think of a more toxic system. It has become pervasive and people bring it up as if it's some received wisdom from Gods or like some fundamental physics law. That you can rank humans on some imaginary "performance" parameter is just, let's say, inhuman.
I get that some are more impactful than others. But that's just a matter of so many parameters. IME someone producing less output has always been due to some shitty process/documentation/systems. I'd rather fix the underlying problem. But no, like some law set in stone, they have to be ranked and the bottom 10% must be yanked.
/rant
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve
I get that some are more impactful than others. But that's just a matter of so many parameters. IME someone producing less output has always been due to some shitty process/documentation/systems. I'd rather fix the underlying problem. But no, like some law set in stone, they have to be ranked and the bottom 10% must be yanked.
/rant
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve
It's intended as a simple forcing function against the strong incentives for managers to say that all their reports are performing well. Companies that don't stack rank still have to solve this problem, and while I'm ultimately opposed to stack ranking, it's probably true that the alternatives are more subjective and error prone.
You are being downvoted but your answer makes total sense to me (and I have been the one asking the question).
As a manager, probably living in a world of faries and unicorns, I try to push and be objective about my DRs no matter what, and we don't have stack ranks. I hope $DAYJOB never implement them otherwise I'll be looking for another place immediately.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ex-Amazon. Lasted 2 years. I'll just repeat the comment I posted the other day:
There are only two instances when you're happy at Amazon - when you start and when you quit. Doing the latter was the best decision I made, perhaps, in my entire career. I can honestly tell that those RSUs and bonuses weren't worth it.
Avoid at all costs. You've been warned.
There are only two instances when you're happy at Amazon - when you start and when you quit. Doing the latter was the best decision I made, perhaps, in my entire career. I can honestly tell that those RSUs and bonuses weren't worth it.
Avoid at all costs. You've been warned.
What's interesting to me is that a few of the people I know how were AWS "long haulers" are massive assholes. It's almost like the kind of person who makes it there is not the kind of person I want as a colleague.
I'm curious was it consistently bad for those two years or more of a see-sawing of highs and lows? I ask because two years seems like a long time given the bleakness of your summary. I'm guessing this might also explain why they tend backload the RSUs grants towards the last 2 years of 4 year vesting period?
It was consistently bad. During the first year or so I was motivated and focused on trying to solve the problems of my department. The writings were on the wall everywhere, but it didn't discourage me and I turned a blind eye on many of the issues. I would lie, if I would say that at the time money wasn't a factor.
Most importantly, Amazon's culture is toxic. Poor leadership (shouting and swearing during meetings) leading to bad hires. It's a cut-throat working environment with high staff rotation. I struggled to cope with the fact how people were treated (planned attrition and PIPs). I was working under 5 different managers during this time, being bullied by the last one. HR did nothing, so I voted with my feet. When this occurred, I was close to reaching a 2yr tenure, so it was easy money for me on the table.
Most importantly, Amazon's culture is toxic. Poor leadership (shouting and swearing during meetings) leading to bad hires. It's a cut-throat working environment with high staff rotation. I struggled to cope with the fact how people were treated (planned attrition and PIPs). I was working under 5 different managers during this time, being bullied by the last one. HR did nothing, so I voted with my feet. When this occurred, I was close to reaching a 2yr tenure, so it was easy money for me on the table.
Thanks for the detail. That indeed sounds like a horrible environment. There seems to be a great irony in that the company makes so much of their "leadership principles." and that's the environment it has produced. My understanding is that the leadership principles thing is an extensive part of the interview process.
[deleted]
Ex-Amazonian here, I agree with almost everything OP say. I have a few things to add in case HR is reading this:
- RSUs vesting schedule sucks, fix it.(5% - first year, 15% - second , then 5% each quarter, i think...)
- Internal tooling is pretty bad (frameworks, pipelines, ....) and the documentation is non-existent, and when it exists , is not very helpful.
- Amazon has the least amount of holidays of all FAANG, why?
- Make it easier to switch teams
- RSUs vesting schedule sucks, fix it.(5% - first year, 15% - second , then 5% each quarter, i think...)
- Internal tooling is pretty bad (frameworks, pipelines, ....) and the documentation is non-existent, and when it exists , is not very helpful.
- Amazon has the least amount of holidays of all FAANG, why?
- Make it easier to switch teams
> (5% - first year, 15% - second
This is done on purpose because a vast majority of employees leave Amazon within 18 months or so. And those who can withstand that environment for 24 months and beyond develop thick enough skin and make enough internal connections to survive till 5+ years.
(bit of a tangent)
> in case HR is reading this
HR's primary (perhaps only) job is to protect the upper management (execs and above) from the nuisance caused by workers down below. It took me a while to sink in but when it did it brought in lot of clarity to the way I deal with HR.
IMO this could be generalised to a reasonable degree. For instance, police force's primary job is to protect the government from the internal threat which is the population at large. Catching thieves happens to be a small by-product of it.
Employees' allegiance is, first and foremost, to their pay master.
This is done on purpose because a vast majority of employees leave Amazon within 18 months or so. And those who can withstand that environment for 24 months and beyond develop thick enough skin and make enough internal connections to survive till 5+ years.
(bit of a tangent)
> in case HR is reading this
HR's primary (perhaps only) job is to protect the upper management (execs and above) from the nuisance caused by workers down below. It took me a while to sink in but when it did it brought in lot of clarity to the way I deal with HR.
IMO this could be generalised to a reasonable degree. For instance, police force's primary job is to protect the government from the internal threat which is the population at large. Catching thieves happens to be a small by-product of it.
Employees' allegiance is, first and foremost, to their pay master.
I heard that their (miserly) first and second year RSU vests are made up for with a cash component during those two years, or am I mistaken about that?
Yes, you get money. There's some strings attached, you have to return the money under certain conditions.
Haha what they probably don’t mention is second year bonus is prorated.
So it’s a double fuck you, bc it gets paid out as quickly as salary but is in permanent to your TC as a bonus lol
So it’s a double fuck you, bc it gets paid out as quickly as salary but is in permanent to your TC as a bonus lol
HR's job is to protect the company from the employees (that includes execs).
> RSUs vesting schedule sucks, fix it.(5% - first year, 15% - second , then 5% each quarter, i think...)
They don’t want to fix that. I’m sure they save a ton of money by backloading vesting like that. With their turnover rate, they probably pay out a pretty small portion of their awarded grants.
As I understand it (having never worked there), they are also stingy with granting new stock, and consider unvested grants in determining what to award each year. e.g. “You had an amazing year, but you’re sitting on a bunch of stock already, so take this tiny new grant and fuck off.” I’ve heard this from multiple former employees so have no particular reason to doubt it.
They don’t want to fix that. I’m sure they save a ton of money by backloading vesting like that. With their turnover rate, they probably pay out a pretty small portion of their awarded grants.
As I understand it (having never worked there), they are also stingy with granting new stock, and consider unvested grants in determining what to award each year. e.g. “You had an amazing year, but you’re sitting on a bunch of stock already, so take this tiny new grant and fuck off.” I’ve heard this from multiple former employees so have no particular reason to doubt it.
> You had an amazing year, but you’re sitting on a bunch of stock already, so take this tiny new grant and fuck off
That's true, but it can go the other way too. One person I know got a needs improvement rating and no stock at all, but turned around and did rockstar work the next year. Because AMZN happened to have crashed about 50% in that time, getting the person back to target total compensation for the exceeds rating required granting considerably more RSUs than they would have received had they also gotten an exceeds in the prior year.
That's true, but it can go the other way too. One person I know got a needs improvement rating and no stock at all, but turned around and did rockstar work the next year. Because AMZN happened to have crashed about 50% in that time, getting the person back to target total compensation for the exceeds rating required granting considerably more RSUs than they would have received had they also gotten an exceeds in the prior year.
I think treating vesting as the time of compensation is a poor model. The compensation was when the stock was granted. Otherwise why grant vesting stock at all?
> - Amazon has the least amount of holidays of all FAANG, why?
probably too focused on frugality to consider retention
probably too focused on frugality to consider retention
Amazon has to be at the point of literally running out of nearby human beings to be concerned about retention.
https://www.essence.com/news/amazon-burning-through-workers/
https://www.essence.com/news/amazon-burning-through-workers/
This article is about warehouse workers, not developers.
It may be, but you may rest assured that when a recruiter asks me whether I'd like to work for Amazon, how they treat warehouse employees is going to be a factor in my answer. I've never been confident of the viability of "it's fine, they only hate other people" as a social strategy.
Not like Amazon exactly has a good reputation for treating tech workers well either.
Workers are workers to management. Regardless of whether you pick up keyboards or press them.
> Amazon has to be at the point of literally running out of nearby human beings to be concerned about retention.
It seems like they're more than willing to hire imports. I get more recruiter spam from them than anyone else, and I don't live anywhere near any of their major offices.
It seems like they're more than willing to hire imports. I get more recruiter spam from them than anyone else, and I don't live anywhere near any of their major offices.
This is true as well. I got an email offering me immigration support to move to Vancouver. I already live in Canada, have my entire life, and every job has also been in Canada.
You are assuming recruiters can read
[deleted]
They have lots of remote jobs now as well.
I read a stat that 1 out of ~154 Americans currently works for amazon.
American workers, not Americans overall - it's still astonishing, but they have a bit less than a million US employees rather than 330M/154 = 2.1M employees.
They do consider retention, make no mistake.
I’m sure they do. They just also don’t care until it becomes a critical issue.
I am contacted by an Amazon recruiter at least once a week. I’m sure every engineer I know is. I wonder how much of their money they blow on recruiting and how much engineering time is spent in interviews replacing all the burned out engineers. Plus all the talent that won’t even entertain a job at Amazon.
I am contacted by an Amazon recruiter at least once a week. I’m sure every engineer I know is. I wonder how much of their money they blow on recruiting and how much engineering time is spent in interviews replacing all the burned out engineers. Plus all the talent that won’t even entertain a job at Amazon.
Lately I've seen less recruiter pitches from Amazon and more personalized messages from managers there about specific roles on their teams, which is a new wrinkle. I doubt that those people would add hours of recruiting to their weekly workload unless the standard candidate pipeline was really running dry.
I got a message on LinkedIn from a software developer manager there less than a month ago. Was quite shocked and didn't think such a thing was even possible.
Also got a staff software engineer from Facebook who added me on there, and had in their title "hiring". lol.
Also got a staff software engineer from Facebook who added me on there, and had in their title "hiring". lol.
Not caring until something becomes a critical issue is very deeply ingrained in Amazon's culture.
> They do consider retention, make no mistake.
As in they consider retention unimportant, and something to not prioritize?
Because it sure seems that way.
As in they consider retention unimportant, and something to not prioritize?
Because it sure seems that way.
Could you expand on this, please?
I believe the commenter was implying that their policy takes retention into account, and amazon simply doesn't value retaining employees
> I believe the commenter was implying that their policy takes retention into account, and amazon simply doesn't value retaining employees
I think there's some Bezos quote about people being lazy and it being easier to extract labor from fresh hires trying to prove themselves.
I think there's some Bezos quote about people being lazy and it being easier to extract labor from fresh hires trying to prove themselves.
> Bezos believed that workers' desire to perform well decreased over time and that an entrenched workforce was a "march to mediocrity," Niekerk told The Times.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-polices-based-jeff-be...
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-polices-based-jeff-be...
That's a solid degree of irony from someone that worked in the same place for 27 years :-D
Yes, they are well-known for having attrition targets.
- Amazon has the least amount of holidays of all FAANG, why?
I find the attitude in a company starts from the top - so I'd Blame Bezos for the culture that does this, look at how they treat their non software dev workers.
I find the attitude in a company starts from the top - so I'd Blame Bezos for the culture that does this, look at how they treat their non software dev workers.
> RSUs vesting schedule sucks
This is a crucial part of PIP culture. It took me awhile too realize how common a pattern it is for companies to offer promising RSUs as part of total comp and then drive employees out after 10 months.
That vesting schedule is just some slight of hand so that you think Amazon is paying you XX% more than they have ever planned on. In reality you're getting paid likely less than you would sticking at a smaller, saner company. If you knew that upfront you'd never join.
To be clear, not all companies that offer RSUs are like this (of course most of them have better vesting), but this is a pattern I've seen a bit too often.
This is a crucial part of PIP culture. It took me awhile too realize how common a pattern it is for companies to offer promising RSUs as part of total comp and then drive employees out after 10 months.
That vesting schedule is just some slight of hand so that you think Amazon is paying you XX% more than they have ever planned on. In reality you're getting paid likely less than you would sticking at a smaller, saner company. If you knew that upfront you'd never join.
To be clear, not all companies that offer RSUs are like this (of course most of them have better vesting), but this is a pattern I've seen a bit too often.
> 5% - first year, 15% - second , then 5% each quarter, i think...
It's 5%, 15%, 40%, 40%.
In lieu of RSU's in Year 1, you get a big signing bonus. Year 2, not quite as big signing bonus (hence the +10% RSU). Year 3 and 4, nothing but RSU.
It adds up to the same amount every year assuming no stock growth.
Are you saying you just want double your salary for year 1 and 2 and are planning to quit before year 3 when it drops to nil? Yeah, who wouldn't?
I wouldn't want to be a shareholder of any company dumb enough to offer this.
It's 5%, 15%, 40%, 40%.
In lieu of RSU's in Year 1, you get a big signing bonus. Year 2, not quite as big signing bonus (hence the +10% RSU). Year 3 and 4, nothing but RSU.
It adds up to the same amount every year assuming no stock growth.
Are you saying you just want double your salary for year 1 and 2 and are planning to quit before year 3 when it drops to nil? Yeah, who wouldn't?
I wouldn't want to be a shareholder of any company dumb enough to offer this.
Doesn’t the signing bonus get revoked?
| - Make it easier to switch teams
It's actually much easier to switch teams at Amazon than most of tech.
It's actually much easier to switch teams at Amazon than most of tech.
Is not, is easy to switch team if you know people in that team, and the manager already wants you, otherwise you have to go through interview loops, etc... At Google for example is way easier, as it should be.
This is a weird take. Of course it's easier when people know you. Why would the hiring manager hire someone they don't know without an interview? Asking to talk to 2-3 people is very reasonable. It's not a full loop, it's whatever the hiring manager decides to do.If you happen to have strong documentation to show about things you contributed, that helps too. When I said it's easy I meant that there are no requirements from Amazon you need to follow in order to switch teams (e.g., be on a team for at least X months, have a rating of at least Y, etc). You just need to find a hiring manager that is willing to hire you. Given that external hiring is hard at Amazon, many managers build their teams just with internal transfers.
Do you still have to go through a full interview loop?
You do, and if for any reason the next manager doesn't want you or change his/her/x mind, you are in a really awkward situation with your team.
This is not true, not in AWS nor in CDO.
The hiring manager might connect you with an engineer on their team to see if you’re a fit, but it’s not an actual interview loop. You’re certainly not coding.
Source: Been at Amazon for a many, many years across retail and AWS teams. This was never true, and if you saw this really happen, it’s a 1% minority.
The hiring manager might connect you with an engineer on their team to see if you’re a fit, but it’s not an actual interview loop. You’re certainly not coding.
Source: Been at Amazon for a many, many years across retail and AWS teams. This was never true, and if you saw this really happen, it’s a 1% minority.
That was not my experience, and certainly not the experience of my coworkers that have been at Amazon "many, many years". If you are cozy with the people of the team you hope to get into, then is easy, otherwise, you get your CRs reviewed, asked for design docs, and need to talk with several people on the team. If you worked on a small project for a year, or were hired to maintain something that was already there, you don't get to have design docs, nor impact opportunities (even if you asked your manager for it during 1on1s). Also the next manager can make you apply (your current manager gets notified) and then rejects you, just because, and you will be in a delicate situation.
I agree - you get code reviews reviewed by the other team, design documents, and other artifacts. What I was saying was that there’s no formal interview loop like the one when you join the company. You’re not going to grow through LP questions and white boarding code.
> Internal tooling is pretty bad (frameworks, pipelines, ....) and the documentation is non-existent, and when it exists , is not very helpful.
Surprised to read this. The tooling is what I miss most from Amazon, but I was in AWS the whole time, I've heard the retail situation is quite different.
Surprised to read this. The tooling is what I miss most from Amazon, but I was in AWS the whole time, I've heard the retail situation is quite different.
> in case HR is reading this
If they cared, they would have done something about this long ago.
If they cared, they would have done something about this long ago.
I left amazon after just under 2 years and I agree with everything you wrote here.
You’re asked to move fast but constantly delayed by every team or system you have to interact with. Duct tape abounds and that duct tape is usually “go file a ticket and wait 3 days”. This made scoping your project really difficult. Add 2 weeks of back and forth for each team you had to talk with.
On a more positive note, the reason I stayed was because of my incredible manager and team. My manager was of the best people I’ve ever worked with
You’re asked to move fast but constantly delayed by every team or system you have to interact with. Duct tape abounds and that duct tape is usually “go file a ticket and wait 3 days”. This made scoping your project really difficult. Add 2 weeks of back and forth for each team you had to talk with.
On a more positive note, the reason I stayed was because of my incredible manager and team. My manager was of the best people I’ve ever worked with
Huge plus one here, same situation. Except opposite situation with my team/manager unfortunately.
> In order to be efficient on a macro level, it requires being (very) inefficient at the micro level.
This is put succinctly.
Seeing Amazon from within was an absolute shock. It is hard to be hyperbolic about the company's technical achievements: Prime, AWS, 2-hour Delivery, Alexa, Prime Video, Amazon Go ... absolutely incredible, world-changing stuff.
But the experience of working there felt like the place was on fire. People transferring teams in droves, joining in droves from outside, entire teams doing duplicate or triplicate work, managers of managers of managers of managers. And yet the speed at which they launch successful products at global scale is unrivaled.
I'm glad I got to be a part of it but there's almost nothing that could entice me to go back.
This is put succinctly.
Seeing Amazon from within was an absolute shock. It is hard to be hyperbolic about the company's technical achievements: Prime, AWS, 2-hour Delivery, Alexa, Prime Video, Amazon Go ... absolutely incredible, world-changing stuff.
But the experience of working there felt like the place was on fire. People transferring teams in droves, joining in droves from outside, entire teams doing duplicate or triplicate work, managers of managers of managers of managers. And yet the speed at which they launch successful products at global scale is unrivaled.
I'm glad I got to be a part of it but there's almost nothing that could entice me to go back.
I'll accept the logistics management part of Prime and AWS as obviously major achievements, but Alexa, Prime Video and Go?
Alexa is a spy machine that makes already easy tasks marginally easier, and every so often tells a child exactly how to electrocute themselves.
Prime Video is a 2nd or even 3rd rate video service in my experience.
And having moved to Seattle recently, I tried out Amazon Go a couple times and it just sucks? The selection is super tiny and honestly, I just prefer a self checkout with tap payments. I found myself constantly worrying if their camera system would correctly ring me up.
Alexa is a spy machine that makes already easy tasks marginally easier, and every so often tells a child exactly how to electrocute themselves.
Prime Video is a 2nd or even 3rd rate video service in my experience.
And having moved to Seattle recently, I tried out Amazon Go a couple times and it just sucks? The selection is super tiny and honestly, I just prefer a self checkout with tap payments. I found myself constantly worrying if their camera system would correctly ring me up.
You are approaching all of these from the perspective of an engineer and not recognizing that ordinary people don't see products and systems the way you do (a mistake I also often make).
> Alexa is a spy machine that makes already easy tasks marginally easier
For the average person who isn't super-bothered about privacy, the voice-activated functionality is genuinely novel and delightful.
> Prime Video is a 2nd or even 3rd rate video service in my experience
"2nd best to Netflix" is no slouch at all.
> I tried out Amazon Go a couple times and it just sucks? The selection is super tiny and honestly, I just prefer a self checkout with tap payments. I found myself constantly worrying if their camera system would correctly ring me up.
So - an intentionally-small-selection store has a small selection, your personal preferences don't line up with the (you must admit, extremely friction-free) checkout system, and you worried about a bug that (from the fact that you phrased it that way) didn't actually happen? Sounds like it's working extremely well for how it's designed!
(Disclaimer - I'm an Amazon employee, though I don't work on any of the discussed products, and frankly am pretty critical of them all both internally and externally too. But to claim that they're not successes _at the criteria that they are aiming for_ is mistaken)
> Alexa is a spy machine that makes already easy tasks marginally easier
For the average person who isn't super-bothered about privacy, the voice-activated functionality is genuinely novel and delightful.
> Prime Video is a 2nd or even 3rd rate video service in my experience
"2nd best to Netflix" is no slouch at all.
> I tried out Amazon Go a couple times and it just sucks? The selection is super tiny and honestly, I just prefer a self checkout with tap payments. I found myself constantly worrying if their camera system would correctly ring me up.
So - an intentionally-small-selection store has a small selection, your personal preferences don't line up with the (you must admit, extremely friction-free) checkout system, and you worried about a bug that (from the fact that you phrased it that way) didn't actually happen? Sounds like it's working extremely well for how it's designed!
(Disclaimer - I'm an Amazon employee, though I don't work on any of the discussed products, and frankly am pretty critical of them all both internally and externally too. But to claim that they're not successes _at the criteria that they are aiming for_ is mistaken)
The whole "average person doesn't care about privacy" while generally true, is in my opinion, a cop out that allows us software developers to hand wave away the ways we monetize people. Also, I can see how my friends who use alexa (and google for that matter) have adapted their vocal cadences and vocab to interact with the device. And at the end of the day it is a way for people to play music, get news/weather reports, and order more goods. All things that are already very easy on smartphones/web browsers.
As for Go, I have never seen a corner shop, either in the US or in Europe, with such a tiny density of goods. It is designed to look like a Safeway or a Kroger but then is "intentionally" a small store. It's fine if this is still in the trial stage but that is what it felt like, instead of feeling like an actual shopping experience I would use day to day. Also, there was no one else in the store at all, during each of the 3 times I went, so I am still going to wonder what the success rate will be when tracking lots of people constantly picking up and putting down items.
And sorry for the confusion, I'm not saying they aren't successes. I'm just saying that they are not world wide game changers like Prime and AWS as the original poster said.
As for Go, I have never seen a corner shop, either in the US or in Europe, with such a tiny density of goods. It is designed to look like a Safeway or a Kroger but then is "intentionally" a small store. It's fine if this is still in the trial stage but that is what it felt like, instead of feeling like an actual shopping experience I would use day to day. Also, there was no one else in the store at all, during each of the 3 times I went, so I am still going to wonder what the success rate will be when tracking lots of people constantly picking up and putting down items.
And sorry for the confusion, I'm not saying they aren't successes. I'm just saying that they are not world wide game changers like Prime and AWS as the original poster said.
> The whole "average person doesn't care about privacy" while generally true, is in my opinion, a cop out that allows us software developers to hand wave away the ways we monetize people.
Right, yep, I absolutely whole-heartedly 100% agree - hence why I am critical of this technology at every reasonable juncture. I was presenting this as a counter-argument to the argument I mistakenly thought you were making (that voice control is not a successful product because it involves privacy-invasion), not as a justification of the technology itself.
> And sorry for the confusion, I'm not saying they aren't successes. I'm just saying that they are not world wide game changers like Prime and AWS as the original poster said.
Ah, fair. I'll gladly agree to that! Alexa is not meaningfully distinguished from Google Home or Siri, so it can't really be said to be a game-changer; ditto for Prime Video and Netflix/D+, etc; and I do agree with you that Prime Go is, at best, a marginal progression on the current state of affairs (I do think that "not needing to employ checkout people" is probably massively impactful from a business-process perspective, but from a customers' perspective, not really much different from a self-checkout)
Thank you for a respectful and illuminating exchange - this is why HN remains the only social site that I feel good about using :D
Right, yep, I absolutely whole-heartedly 100% agree - hence why I am critical of this technology at every reasonable juncture. I was presenting this as a counter-argument to the argument I mistakenly thought you were making (that voice control is not a successful product because it involves privacy-invasion), not as a justification of the technology itself.
> And sorry for the confusion, I'm not saying they aren't successes. I'm just saying that they are not world wide game changers like Prime and AWS as the original poster said.
Ah, fair. I'll gladly agree to that! Alexa is not meaningfully distinguished from Google Home or Siri, so it can't really be said to be a game-changer; ditto for Prime Video and Netflix/D+, etc; and I do agree with you that Prime Go is, at best, a marginal progression on the current state of affairs (I do think that "not needing to employ checkout people" is probably massively impactful from a business-process perspective, but from a customers' perspective, not really much different from a self-checkout)
Thank you for a respectful and illuminating exchange - this is why HN remains the only social site that I feel good about using :D
Prime video was fantastic, but it’s starting to revert to traditional television network tactics.
Additional paid channel packages, commercials in the middle of paid programming, advertisements at the beginning of non-paid programming, new seasons being released in a weekly pattern instead of all at once.
Additional paid channel packages, commercials in the middle of paid programming, advertisements at the beginning of non-paid programming, new seasons being released in a weekly pattern instead of all at once.
A couple years ago I turned down an offer at AWS as a Solutions Architect. The same day I did that, the hiring managers director requested that I speak with him. He was basically selling the job and saying what a mistake it was to turn it down. It felt really high pressure!
I’ve literally never had that happen in my life. Most companies just immediately ghost me if I turn down an offer. This isn’t covert bragging about being some kind of superstar either, it just felt like they were desperate. I know all the horror stories about people getting PIPs, it kinda started feeling like some kind of trap lol
I’ve literally never had that happen in my life. Most companies just immediately ghost me if I turn down an offer. This isn’t covert bragging about being some kind of superstar either, it just felt like they were desperate. I know all the horror stories about people getting PIPs, it kinda started feeling like some kind of trap lol
> it just felt like they were desperate
That's what it sounds like. I had a guy from my past (somebody I had worked for years ago, but didn't know that well) call me up out of the blue once, basically begging me to come work for him. I was flattered, and looking forward to (finally) being treated like a human being instead of a replaceable cog for once in my programming career, so I took the job. Good lord, what a mistake. The reason he was begging was because he was a totally abusive asshole and couldn't keep anybody for any amount of money. You would think that watching people come and go would make these people re-evaluate their approach, but in their minds, it's always the "peons" that are wrong.
That's what it sounds like. I had a guy from my past (somebody I had worked for years ago, but didn't know that well) call me up out of the blue once, basically begging me to come work for him. I was flattered, and looking forward to (finally) being treated like a human being instead of a replaceable cog for once in my programming career, so I took the job. Good lord, what a mistake. The reason he was begging was because he was a totally abusive asshole and couldn't keep anybody for any amount of money. You would think that watching people come and go would make these people re-evaluate their approach, but in their minds, it's always the "peons" that are wrong.
I had that happen once - not at Amazon - where the startup CEO kept calling me leaving increasingly angry messages for not talking with him post my rejection. Shudder...
Should have seen how much they'd be willing to increase the offer.
I just started an application with them also for a Solutions Architect role, I even have a scheduled technical interview in a couple of weeks. Wondering if I should go through. Really don't like what I am finding here, but not sure if it's just a biased thread where people which love their jobs are not here defending AWS or if it's truly a dysfunctional org in that area, or too team dependent (which is a lottery then).
Is it anything good of working at AWS?
Is it anything good of working at AWS?
> I can’t think of a single internal tool at Amazon that is better than a commercial counterpart.
I haven't worked at Amazon in 6 years, but when I was last there, these tools were leaps-and-bounds above publicly-available equivalents:
* Pipelines (CI/CD tool. Still better than all alternatives IMO, including the AWS offering for some reason)
* Igraph (Amazingly good, wipes the floor with Grafana which I have used since)
* TT (ticket tracker)
* SIM? the new issue-management system they added to replace Jira. Soooo much better than Jira. But it was pretty new when I left so I don't know what it has become.
I haven't worked at Amazon in 6 years, but when I was last there, these tools were leaps-and-bounds above publicly-available equivalents:
* Pipelines (CI/CD tool. Still better than all alternatives IMO, including the AWS offering for some reason)
* Igraph (Amazingly good, wipes the floor with Grafana which I have used since)
* TT (ticket tracker)
* SIM? the new issue-management system they added to replace Jira. Soooo much better than Jira. But it was pretty new when I left so I don't know what it has become.
Jira is bad, but SIM is horrendous. SIM makes Jira look good.
tbh it had just rolled out when I left and I was only giving my initial impression. I don't know what it's like to use long-term.
Although I _hate_ Jira so maybe I'm biased also.
Although I _hate_ Jira so maybe I'm biased also.
Agreed with everything above, with the addition of brazil. It was pretty fantastic to work with
[deleted]
Yeah, I was pretty surprised to read this complaint, but I would say iGraph is actually the weakest of the bunch. Logging and metrics tools at Amazon leave a lot to be desired. They get the job done, but definitely not best in class.
I see the value in a lot of these, but I also have to say one common thread across almost all tooling is bad interfaces clearly designed by backend/generalist engineers doing their own ad-hoc form of design. Having worked with an org that transitioned from bitbucket -> gitlab I also found the development/issues at Amazon to have some big headscratchers on missing features like crux diffs following some unintuitive ruleset, and countless smaller inconveniences.
Interesting - I (Amazon employee) have a buddy at Grafana who brags about it all the time. I've tinkered with it, and found it slightly more functional than iGraph, but a lot prettier. What do you think iGraph does better?
+1 on Pipelines being amazing. A lot of people tell me Jira is better than SIM - haven't had a chance to use the former.
+1 on Pipelines being amazing. A lot of people tell me Jira is better than SIM - haven't had a chance to use the former.
The article mentions aggressive delivery dates, conflicting goals between different departments that get in the way of career progression, and massive amounts of stress as being 'normal' at Amazon.
And we already know that Amazon exploits and over-exerts their employees in other divisions, like warehouse.
At what point do we say enough is enough? Amazon warehouse employees are already pushing for better working conditions through Unions. When will we finally realize that Amazon is equally over-working everyone and join that solidarity effort so that everyone's working environment becomes better? Quitting doesn't change anything, we can see they just rehire and perpetuate bad culture. Even the author of the article says just that; he was hired to replace someone.
If nothing changes, your friends and colleagues (and your future children if they do engineering) will all still suffer at the hands of Amazon. And believe me, their work culture will bleed out to other companies. I've seen it.
And we already know that Amazon exploits and over-exerts their employees in other divisions, like warehouse.
At what point do we say enough is enough? Amazon warehouse employees are already pushing for better working conditions through Unions. When will we finally realize that Amazon is equally over-working everyone and join that solidarity effort so that everyone's working environment becomes better? Quitting doesn't change anything, we can see they just rehire and perpetuate bad culture. Even the author of the article says just that; he was hired to replace someone.
If nothing changes, your friends and colleagues (and your future children if they do engineering) will all still suffer at the hands of Amazon. And believe me, their work culture will bleed out to other companies. I've seen it.
By that logic won't the company just destroy itself from the inside out eventually? How many people who read this article and the likely scores more or bothered to look at glassdoor will bother to apply or accept a recruiter call? Eventually something breaks internally and the company is destroyed (albeit likely a very slow death) or it gets fixed. I don't worry a ton about HQ people, most of those can get other jobs but the warehouse workers in small towns without other opportunities, that's a tougher one and I hope that they are able to unionize or get some sort of strengthened protections themselves or through the gov.
>> If nothing changes, your friends and colleagues (and your future children if they do engineering) will all still suffer at the hands of Amazon. And believe me, their work culture will bleed out to other companies. I've seen it.
> By that logic won't the company just destroy itself from the inside out eventually?
Yes, but it usually takes an unacceptably long time for something like that to happen, and in the mean time a lot of people get hurt. As they say "in the long run, we're all dead": it doesn't do us much good if letting the problems work themselves out means we'll never live to see the solution.
> By that logic won't the company just destroy itself from the inside out eventually?
Yes, but it usually takes an unacceptably long time for something like that to happen, and in the mean time a lot of people get hurt. As they say "in the long run, we're all dead": it doesn't do us much good if letting the problems work themselves out means we'll never live to see the solution.
> If nothing changes, your friends and colleagues (and your future children if they do engineering) will all still suffer at the hands of Amazon.
????? it's super possible to simply not work there
????? it's super possible to simply not work there
Tell that to Twitch and Ring employees. The consolidation of the tech industry is pretty apparent and I would put a lot of money on Amazon being one of the "final four" of the tech industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
Why do we have to have "solidarity" on this issue? What does that even mean in practice? Everyone knows the deal with Amazon or learns very quickly, and either deals with it or quits.
I worked at a large, brand name, older company and there are parallels. I think past some size of an organization, it turns into a bureaucracy to get anything done.
- Internal tooling was poor and most teams DIY. Any centrally managed thing was horrible and either home-grown and poorly documented or some VP picked it and poorly documented
- The companies needs superseded your career goals to the point that very specific trainings were basically forced even if it had nothing to do with what you do (six sigma)
- To get anything done required 3-5 other teams to do anything and took forever. Turn around time to get a server spun up was ~6-8 weeks.
One thing that was different was attrition. This was before remote working and when the nobody in town was hiring you really were stuck.
I like working in smaller organizations where you can have an impact. I only think one of the FAANG would be worthy of me putting up with working in a large bureaucracy again - the other A - and only because I haven't heard horror stories - if you have them, share them.
- Internal tooling was poor and most teams DIY. Any centrally managed thing was horrible and either home-grown and poorly documented or some VP picked it and poorly documented
- The companies needs superseded your career goals to the point that very specific trainings were basically forced even if it had nothing to do with what you do (six sigma)
- To get anything done required 3-5 other teams to do anything and took forever. Turn around time to get a server spun up was ~6-8 weeks.
One thing that was different was attrition. This was before remote working and when the nobody in town was hiring you really were stuck.
I like working in smaller organizations where you can have an impact. I only think one of the FAANG would be worthy of me putting up with working in a large bureaucracy again - the other A - and only because I haven't heard horror stories - if you have them, share them.
> the other A - and only because I haven't heard horror stories
Not even the horror stories leak ...
Not even the horror stories leak ...
"Turn around time to get a server spun up was ~6-8 weeks." -> ok this one threw me for a loop. I can literally get an EC2 server spun up within minutes inside Amazon. But as others have stated org quality varies a lot. If you are dealing with an org that requires you to say at the beginning of the year exactly what budget you need, I could see that.
This was years ago with their own data centers and yes budgets with server allocations at the beginning of the year or twice a year.
It's really a shame what many of the "FAANG" companies (and the companies who admire/adopt their practices) are doing to tech work.
My own experiences, the horror stories I've read, the broken/horrible interview trivia loops, the nonstop crunches, the nonstop on-call escalations, the difficult ethical positions that come with working at some companies, etc. have me feeling worse than ever about this profession.
It didn't use to be like this. There was a time not long ago when individual personality and skills mattered. Workloads could be negotiated, interviews were conversational.
But now it seems that a few companies have eliminated all that wasteful "toil" of interacting with human beings by instead treating them like machines, and thousands of other companies follow suit almost blindly.
I'd love to see a job aggregator for anti-FAANGs. Does such a thing exist?
My own experiences, the horror stories I've read, the broken/horrible interview trivia loops, the nonstop crunches, the nonstop on-call escalations, the difficult ethical positions that come with working at some companies, etc. have me feeling worse than ever about this profession.
It didn't use to be like this. There was a time not long ago when individual personality and skills mattered. Workloads could be negotiated, interviews were conversational.
But now it seems that a few companies have eliminated all that wasteful "toil" of interacting with human beings by instead treating them like machines, and thousands of other companies follow suit almost blindly.
I'd love to see a job aggregator for anti-FAANGs. Does such a thing exist?
Is this the norm? I thought this was mostly just amazon.
If it is the norm I blame it on the over supply of software engineers. The salaries stay high but the churn is now higher because with that high of a salary they will burn through as many engineers as possible to get the perfect person.
If it is the norm I blame it on the over supply of software engineers. The salaries stay high but the churn is now higher because with that high of a salary they will burn through as many engineers as possible to get the perfect person.
I'd use it, but only if it excluded fads too. I don't want to be near Web 3, cryptocurrencies, or generally any new tech stack released within the last five years.
If you don't like this idea, get of my lawn. ;)
If you don't like this idea, get of my lawn. ;)
> It's really a shame what many of the "FAANG" companies (and the companies who admire/adopt their practices) are doing to tech work.
> broken/horrible interview trivia loops, the nonstop crunches, the nonstop on-call escalations, the difficult ethical positions that come with working at some companies, etc. have me feeling worse than ever about this profession.
> a few companies have eliminated all that wasteful "toil" of interacting with human beings by instead treating them like machines...
I agree that these things are happening, but this is not happening everywhere. In particular, Microsoft is not true for any of the above over the last 5+ years since Satya came onboard. In my experience, every one of the above is not true at Microsoft, with one notable exception: the interview loop is indeed hard. But other than that, it's a much better situation at Microsoft. There are no difficult ethical positions (ethics and trust are first class core values there). Individuals matter, and allowances are made for different people's strengths and weaknesses. Workloads and deadlines can indeed be negotiated. It's far more "human" there than other places like Amazon, Facebook, Uber, and other places.
> broken/horrible interview trivia loops, the nonstop crunches, the nonstop on-call escalations, the difficult ethical positions that come with working at some companies, etc. have me feeling worse than ever about this profession.
> a few companies have eliminated all that wasteful "toil" of interacting with human beings by instead treating them like machines...
I agree that these things are happening, but this is not happening everywhere. In particular, Microsoft is not true for any of the above over the last 5+ years since Satya came onboard. In my experience, every one of the above is not true at Microsoft, with one notable exception: the interview loop is indeed hard. But other than that, it's a much better situation at Microsoft. There are no difficult ethical positions (ethics and trust are first class core values there). Individuals matter, and allowances are made for different people's strengths and weaknesses. Workloads and deadlines can indeed be negotiated. It's far more "human" there than other places like Amazon, Facebook, Uber, and other places.
Microsoft's interview loop was the easiest I've ever had, it's the only job I've had where I've felt my ethics challenged, and my org's leadership was comically ruthless.
You joined a good org and that's awesome, but I believe you can just as easily join a bad one at Microsoft or a good one at Amazon.
You joined a good org and that's awesome, but I believe you can just as easily join a bad one at Microsoft or a good one at Amazon.
>It didn't use to be like this. There was a time not long ago when individual personality and skills mattered. Workloads could be negotiated, interviews were conversational.
Er, when? Old Microsoft was infamous for the ping pong ball interview questions and stack rankings. Is this not just a result of companies in the tech market being successful and turning from plucky underdog to bureaucratic behemoth?
Er, when? Old Microsoft was infamous for the ping pong ball interview questions and stack rankings. Is this not just a result of companies in the tech market being successful and turning from plucky underdog to bureaucratic behemoth?
Seems like you just need an job aggregator that skips particular companies you dislike.
I finally started just marking their recruiter emails as spam. I still get a couple a month despite asking them to stop. I interviewed for them a few years back and it was clear then that they are looking for people that are technically smart but total pushovers. If you are the type of person that are susceptible to abusive relationships then you'd fit right in. The sad part is many of their employees prob feel lucky to be in that situation. If you know your own worth you would not work for them and if you believe in treating humans with respect and dignity you'd definitely not work for them. I got a sense of a complete lack of ethics.
This is explicitly the opposite of what the interviews look for. If you are a pushover you will not have the disagree and commit, dive deep, and ownership lp stories you need.
I’ve done quite a few interviews for Amazon and the debrief was never ‘this person has strong opinions, not inclined’. If you’re not interested in getting the data to prove or disprove your opinions then that will count against you.
I’ve done quite a few interviews for Amazon and the debrief was never ‘this person has strong opinions, not inclined’. If you’re not interested in getting the data to prove or disprove your opinions then that will count against you.
Okay, just because a rat works hard to get out of a maze doesn't mean it knows it is in one. When your interviewer asks to video record you, then proceeds to ask questions while refusing to look at you and pounding away on their laptop keyboard saying they are taking notes. Mind you this goes on for about 4 hours with multiple people that appear to be performing some sort of unethical psychological experiment to see if you're a good fit for their cult.
I think virtual interviews are in general a horrible idea. I haven’t interviewed since virtual on sites were introduced.
This wasn't even a virtual interview at the time. They flew me to Seattle for this.
Bizarre -- I've never had a recorded interview and that would throw me off completely as a candidate.
What filter rules do you use for that? As a frequent Amazon customer I wouldn't want to accidentally filter things I want to receive.
My recruiter strategy has just been to reply with a direct "Hi <name>, No thank you." that doesn't leave room for foot-in-the-door.
My recruiter strategy has just been to reply with a direct "Hi <name>, No thank you." that doesn't leave room for foot-in-the-door.
I just routinely do a cursory glance of my spam folder, but so far no issues. I am guessing it doesn't do much but I like to think if enough people flag them as spam that they then get marked as spam throughout Gmail.
this actually turned out a lot more evenhanded than i was expecting from the title.
i took a job at AWS myself, and left after 8 months. partly it was pull factor to a more exciting offer, but i wont deny some push factors. Amazon hires generally very smart people, but the bureaucracy and legacy is just stifling for someone used to a faster pace in tech. After a while I identified the 4 things I felt that we had to ship in order to be a competitive product, and having determined that we'd take years to do it, left in good conscience hoping that whoever stayed would carry on the good fight. I didn't know it but my manager would leave 2 months after I did, lol.
good times, decent pay but it is clearly no longer Day 1 in many parts of AWS. If I were Adam Selipsky this would be job #1 IMO. AWS can only coast on past reputation so long.
i took a job at AWS myself, and left after 8 months. partly it was pull factor to a more exciting offer, but i wont deny some push factors. Amazon hires generally very smart people, but the bureaucracy and legacy is just stifling for someone used to a faster pace in tech. After a while I identified the 4 things I felt that we had to ship in order to be a competitive product, and having determined that we'd take years to do it, left in good conscience hoping that whoever stayed would carry on the good fight. I didn't know it but my manager would leave 2 months after I did, lol.
good times, decent pay but it is clearly no longer Day 1 in many parts of AWS. If I were Adam Selipsky this would be job #1 IMO. AWS can only coast on past reputation so long.
Cases like these happen at companies at all levels. Massive companies such as Amazon and especially at startups, where roles are not as defined.
After only two months at my current role, I was ready to leave. Was catfished into a role which was not what I interviewed for. Management agrees that I am getting short-changed, but is unwilling to let me change organizations. Sadly, I continue to stay here, after over a year, due to the COVID closures affecting my plans.
After only two months at my current role, I was ready to leave. Was catfished into a role which was not what I interviewed for. Management agrees that I am getting short-changed, but is unwilling to let me change organizations. Sadly, I continue to stay here, after over a year, due to the COVID closures affecting my plans.
The funky thing is the different stigma attached to equivalent situations.
You embellish your CV as an individual and you overdo it = possible catastrophe.
Companies constantly embellishing job postings = just a regular Tuesday.
I'm having a really hard time remembering a job where the job descriptions really matched the day to day activities, and I've worked for ~10 companies, big and small, from Asia, Europe, America.
You embellish your CV as an individual and you overdo it = possible catastrophe.
Companies constantly embellishing job postings = just a regular Tuesday.
I'm having a really hard time remembering a job where the job descriptions really matched the day to day activities, and I've worked for ~10 companies, big and small, from Asia, Europe, America.
> Was catfished into a role which was not what I interviewed for
Why does Amazon do this? I've bailed out 3 times on interviews with them now because somehow the role they sold me on end up being completely different by the time you talk to the team members doing the actual job. It's a huge time waster for everyone involved.
Why does Amazon do this? I've bailed out 3 times on interviews with them now because somehow the role they sold me on end up being completely different by the time you talk to the team members doing the actual job. It's a huge time waster for everyone involved.
I was hired as an Android developer. After 1 year, my manager called me on a Sunday afternoon, and asked me: "do you know HTML?". I said: "yes, who doesn't?". On Monday I was transferred to the web team to work on customer retention.
From the business's point of view, they were trying to plug an urgent hole, from my career's point of view, I wanted to work on mobile Android apps. I moved back to an Android team in a month, which required VP-level approval.
From the business's point of view, they were trying to plug an urgent hole, from my career's point of view, I wanted to work on mobile Android apps. I moved back to an Android team in a month, which required VP-level approval.
Heh something similar happened to me. Recruiter reached out, insisted role was on a special new team in SFO. I did the full interview cycle (on-site in Seattle, which I later learned is what they do if the role is in SEA..).
It was for an awesome team and org, really up and coming.
I get the congrats message that I’ll be getting an offer. Then find out it’s only for SEA. This is after the recruiter insisted it would be SFO because I didn’t want to relocate for various reasons.
Ah so that’s why they flew me to Seattle.. lol.
Ended up being passed around a few orgs recruiters and took a role in sfo that I finally left after 20 months. Sigh.
It was for an awesome team and org, really up and coming.
I get the congrats message that I’ll be getting an offer. Then find out it’s only for SEA. This is after the recruiter insisted it would be SFO because I didn’t want to relocate for various reasons.
Ah so that’s why they flew me to Seattle.. lol.
Ended up being passed around a few orgs recruiters and took a role in sfo that I finally left after 20 months. Sigh.
One of mine was similar. I got sold on a 100% remote role that turned into 9-5, 5 days a week in an office 350km away from where I live. I was really clear up front that relocation was not an option. I'm not sure if they ignored me, or just felt I'd be compelled to move.
Yeah it's the same exact thing at Meta/FB lol
FTA - "I was assigned to had an engineer who had never done web development (didn’t know HTTP, HTML, CSS or Javascript)"
But hey, you bet he knows topological sort and dynamic programming.
But hey, you bet he knows topological sort and dynamic programming.
The article writer said he was in the Devices org so I would bet there are a huge number of hardware engineers there. That engineer could be very proficient with C and firmware and might have not touched web stuff since college, even if that was covered then.
Really telling of an organization that your personal skills don't matter when they just need bodies.
Really telling of an organization that your personal skills don't matter when they just need bodies.
Nailed it ... they were experts in firmware and systems programming and had never really done web development before (that said, they were working very hard to do a good job, just unfortunate that they were set up for failure in a lot of ways).
And reporting to a management chain that doesn’t know any of it!
[deleted]
I have been told by multiple ex-Amazon people that if you are moving for a job there, not to rent a place for the full year as there is a decent chance you will not need it.
Everyone I know says it is worth working there, but mostly as a grab and go for the resume.
Everyone I know says it is worth working there, but mostly as a grab and go for the resume.
> (It is incredible how flexible and effective Excel is for such a wide variety of use-cases)
I worked for a Japanese company, and they used Excel for everything. GANTT Charts were done in Excel (not Project), documentation was written in Excel (not Word), etc.
They had these monster 3,000-row excel punchlists for QC. If even one test failed, the whole shooting match was scrapped.
I worked for a Japanese company, and they used Excel for everything. GANTT Charts were done in Excel (not Project), documentation was written in Excel (not Word), etc.
They had these monster 3,000-row excel punchlists for QC. If even one test failed, the whole shooting match was scrapped.
I had server shell output from one of the "Big 4" consulting companies being sent as a screenshot of the terminal embedded as a pic in an Excel spreadsheet.
Oh, I forgot to mention.
Slideshows were done in Excel (not PP).
Slideshows were done in Excel (not PP).
This sounds like that Simpsons episode where Burns and Smithers go to a Moroccan bazaar and everything is made of drugs including the money.
> the Amazon Leadership Principles.
Such bullshit.
> 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.
"Lead with empathy", by creating conditions in which workers feel they have to urinate in bottles [1].
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7amyn/amazon-denies-workers...
Such bullshit.
> 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.
"Lead with empathy", by creating conditions in which workers feel they have to urinate in bottles [1].
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7amyn/amazon-denies-workers...
I interviewed with Amazon about 2015, pretty long process but compared where I was coming from (huckster data startup) AMZN seemed ideal.
Onboarding was interesting at the general company level, but basically non existent at a team level. I gave it about three months trying to get to grips with the manual tasks underlying their Virtual IP assignment process (was on their networking team). Couldn't make head nor tail of it, had constant problems with the VM running on my laptop and basically started looking around for another job.
However, this little FAANG checkbox I now have ticked has opened lots of doors for me since then. I've seen most of my old team at a few tech events in the interim, and taking to them it seems like I got out in time. The team was "traded" to another senior director, and things got very bad, with loads of folks quitting.
My last day included an exit interview, which kind of stuck with me ever since. Talking to the HR rep, I said that the role probably wasn't a good fit for me, but maybe sometime in the future I'd wind up back at Amazon. You know, one of those throwaway comments you might say to be polite. The HR rep responded with "Well, you never know, maybe" while unconsciously shaking his head at the same time :)
Onboarding was interesting at the general company level, but basically non existent at a team level. I gave it about three months trying to get to grips with the manual tasks underlying their Virtual IP assignment process (was on their networking team). Couldn't make head nor tail of it, had constant problems with the VM running on my laptop and basically started looking around for another job.
However, this little FAANG checkbox I now have ticked has opened lots of doors for me since then. I've seen most of my old team at a few tech events in the interim, and taking to them it seems like I got out in time. The team was "traded" to another senior director, and things got very bad, with loads of folks quitting.
My last day included an exit interview, which kind of stuck with me ever since. Talking to the HR rep, I said that the role probably wasn't a good fit for me, but maybe sometime in the future I'd wind up back at Amazon. You know, one of those throwaway comments you might say to be polite. The HR rep responded with "Well, you never know, maybe" while unconsciously shaking his head at the same time :)
This is like my situation. I just left after being there for 20 months. Various reasons on the team side. Imposter syndrome is a bad excuse but it contributed. Tried switching but other teams insisted on a full interview loop before I could even see it that team would be a better fit.
> Tried switching but other teams insisted on a full interview loop before I could even see it that team would be a better fit.
That’s because they have no consistency in their hiring bar. I know multiple people who were contacted immediately by Amazon recruiters after failing an interview loop. “Hey, that other team says you suck but I bet you’re perfect for our team.” When you know other teams are happy to take your reject candidates, you can’t trust internal candidates any more than external ones.
In fairness, Microsoft has a bit of this. The further across the company you want to move, the more likely you’ll need to interview. But it seems within Amazon that there is no attempt at consistency.
That’s because they have no consistency in their hiring bar. I know multiple people who were contacted immediately by Amazon recruiters after failing an interview loop. “Hey, that other team says you suck but I bet you’re perfect for our team.” When you know other teams are happy to take your reject candidates, you can’t trust internal candidates any more than external ones.
In fairness, Microsoft has a bit of this. The further across the company you want to move, the more likely you’ll need to interview. But it seems within Amazon that there is no attempt at consistency.
I definitely can understand that. But if I’m a mid level engineer I kind of have desires in what kind of team I’d like to join. I’d really hope a hiring manager can entertain that and let me speak with one or two people on the team before I have to agree to a loop. That’s just me though.
You’re definitely right. You should be able to do that. We call that an “informational” at Microsoft. You just chat with the hiring manager or someone else on the team with no guarantee of an interview (from either side). It’s still an evaluation from both sides, but a loose one.
> I know multiple people who were contacted immediately by Amazon recruiters after failing an interview loop. “Hey, that other team says you suck but I bet you’re perfect for our team.” When you know other teams are happy to take your reject candidates, you can’t trust internal candidates any more than external ones.
That happened to me too but I chalked it up to incompetence. They told me at the beginning of the process that I'd have to wait a year to re-apply if I wasn't successful the first go around.
That happened to me too but I chalked it up to incompetence. They told me at the beginning of the process that I'd have to wait a year to re-apply if I wasn't successful the first go around.
> It blew my mind how many business critical processes were managed with excel spreadsheets being shared via email chains.
Enterprise work summed up in one sentence. Impressive. While I agree with Andreessen’s “software is eating the world,” it might be more apt to say “Excel is eating the world.”
Enterprise work summed up in one sentence. Impressive. While I agree with Andreessen’s “software is eating the world,” it might be more apt to say “Excel is eating the world.”
The idea of leaving before the year mark at a company that does signing bonuses stresses me the fuck out. Don't you have to pay back the bonus? When I got an Amazon offer that was the case
Its "sign-on payments" now - so essentially you get a salary augmentation for your first 2 years (and its applied to each paycheck) so you don't need to pay anything back when you leave.
Think this depends on the amount - my sign-on bonus worked as you described, but some others I know got a lump sum (they were more junior and getting a smaller bonus).
At Amazon sign on bonuses are paid over the first 24month, so there is no need to pay back anything.
Is that a signing bonus or a agreement to get paid less in two years?
It is because they have a different vesting schedule from most companies. Instead of 25% of your stock annually with a 1 year cliff, they pay out 5%, 15%, 40%, 40%. So once your signing bonus is up, your shares ramp up.
Is there a meaningful difference?
To me a signing bonus is a upfront payment for you to agree to join. Paying it over two years is just a regular bonus paid biweekly. Time value of money makes the lump sum a lot more valuable, especially in these inflationary times.
Sure, a single lump sum bonus might bump you in a higher tax bracket, whereas the bonus paid over 2 years may keep you in a lower bracket.
That's not really that big a deal. Sure, you might pay lower taxes if the bonus is split between two years, but the difference on tax would surely pale in comparison to typical gains in the stock market or other investment.
[deleted]
Depends on your agreement. Mine was a lump sum up front for the first year and a retention bonus plus stocks for year two. With strictly rsus for the last two years.
You have to pay them back pro rated. If you leave after 10 months you'd only have to pay back 2/12 of the bonus. At least that was the case when I started at Amazon (admittedly almost a decade ago).
If you get a signing bonus that you pay taxes on, then have to return part of it the following year, do you get to deduct it from taxes?
Yes, as long as the amount you repaid exceeds $3,000.
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p525#en_US_2020_publink1000...
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p525#en_US_2020_publink1000...
I stayed over 5 years, so I never had to repay any bonus. I can't be sure what the tax implications would be of it, but based on what I know about taxes (more than most, less than an expert) I suspect it would count against your taxable income in the year when you had to pay it back.
Interesting, I had two amazon offers and no signing bonus was like that. They essentially just prorated it out over the first two years as extra monthly income to be equivalent to the stock you would get in the later two years.
[deleted]
Amazon signing bonuses are there so they can compete on offers while retaining the internal culture metric of max salary.
Amazon gives their signing bonus out monthly over the course of the year to offset the lack of equity in the first few years, so I don't think you'd have to pay it back in this case.
It depends. Companies can ask for (or demand) the signing bonus back. But some won't. I've heard of it going either way - it's luck of the draw.
I had to pay back relocation once. Incredibly painful, but holy shit was it worth it to get away from that place.
"It blew my mind how many business critical processes were managed with excel spreadsheets being shared via email chains." - this also blows my mind, given how many problems there are with Excel (e.g. formatting).
Formatting is a very very distant minor gripe compared to what I think is the main reason this is a problem: versioning.
That being said, if it works, it works.
If it doesn't work, make a case for why and develop a _holistic_ understanding of the costs and benefits of changing the current process. Maybe you can change it, or maybe you learn why it doesn't change.
If it works, but it offends your sensibilities, perhaps this is an opportunity for self-growth.
That being said, if it works, it works.
If it doesn't work, make a case for why and develop a _holistic_ understanding of the costs and benefits of changing the current process. Maybe you can change it, or maybe you learn why it doesn't change.
If it works, but it offends your sensibilities, perhaps this is an opportunity for self-growth.
Just a note that many folks on platforms like dropbox / S3 etc turn on versioning of excel sheets if they are in paid status for this exact reason. It's not perfect, but it get's you a lot very very easily.
Version - date changed - who edited.
Add in the universal flexibility (both function and who can use it).
You can hand an excel file off to admin temp staff all the way to the top 3 folks in the org in one file and they can all interact with it successfully in most cases.
This makes this very powerful.
Version - date changed - who edited.
Add in the universal flexibility (both function and who can use it).
You can hand an excel file off to admin temp staff all the way to the top 3 folks in the org in one file and they can all interact with it successfully in most cases.
This makes this very powerful.
Yeah. It's like git is baked into the file.
I don't work with spreadsheets much but I completely understand why they're loved so much. They're data, code, presentation, versioning, etc. all in one file that has _very_ good support.
Excel is for the people who want to actually get stuff done and find all tooling a distraction from what actually adds value to the company.
I don't work with spreadsheets much but I completely understand why they're loved so much. They're data, code, presentation, versioning, etc. all in one file that has _very_ good support.
Excel is for the people who want to actually get stuff done and find all tooling a distraction from what actually adds value to the company.
What does "are in paid status" mean?
Paid plans either enable or give you longer version history 6 months minimum, some businesses bump that up to 1-2 years (it goes to 10 years with dropbox).
Same with google. Paid plans you can make sure a copy of all sent messages is kept, set retention rules etc. So if folks use email for all their approval / business flows that can be helpful (ie, some orgs CEO might send an email say I approve - go ahead and sign it on big deals rather than shuffling paper or doing a proper e-signature. If so, you might want to keep an archive org level of your email flows
Same with google. Paid plans you can make sure a copy of all sent messages is kept, set retention rules etc. So if folks use email for all their approval / business flows that can be helpful (ie, some orgs CEO might send an email say I approve - go ahead and sign it on big deals rather than shuffling paper or doing a proper e-signature. If so, you might want to keep an archive org level of your email flows
> If it works, but it offends your sensibilities, perhaps this is an opportunity for self-growth.
I've had to learn this lesson. We have an internal microservice whose name is obsolete and no longer makes any sense whatsoever. Everyone is confused by the name until the original reasoning is explained, and they come to understand the original purpose of the service, now long since changed. It drives me up the wall.
I have time and time again made a case for renaming it to accurately represent its modern purpose, which would take an engineer about a week of work - there's a lot of code and config that has to be switched over.
The person running my division has shut me down on this over and over. It goes like this:
Manager: Why do you feel this is a priority?
Me: It confuses people and makes the code less self-explanatory.
Manager: How much time is this costing engineers?
Me: Well, about a minute every time I have to explain it to someone once a week.
Manager: And it would take a week to update? This doesn't seem like a good trade.
Me, mentally spluttering: But the name makes no sense!! It's the wrong name!! It's completely unrelated and has no meaning!
Manager: Do you think you can work with it anyway?
Me: sadly sighs.
I think the manager is right, as much as it offends my sensibilities.
I've had to learn this lesson. We have an internal microservice whose name is obsolete and no longer makes any sense whatsoever. Everyone is confused by the name until the original reasoning is explained, and they come to understand the original purpose of the service, now long since changed. It drives me up the wall.
I have time and time again made a case for renaming it to accurately represent its modern purpose, which would take an engineer about a week of work - there's a lot of code and config that has to be switched over.
The person running my division has shut me down on this over and over. It goes like this:
Manager: Why do you feel this is a priority?
Me: It confuses people and makes the code less self-explanatory.
Manager: How much time is this costing engineers?
Me: Well, about a minute every time I have to explain it to someone once a week.
Manager: And it would take a week to update? This doesn't seem like a good trade.
Me, mentally spluttering: But the name makes no sense!! It's the wrong name!! It's completely unrelated and has no meaning!
Manager: Do you think you can work with it anyway?
Me: sadly sighs.
I think the manager is right, as much as it offends my sensibilities.
I've been doing this stuff for almost 10 years and I _still_ struggle with this lesson. I think it's a good sign. We have a deep desire for correctness. But I think while it's perfectly healthy to desire correctness, we all need to be able to do what you've demonstrated: accept that sometimes correctness is not a logical endeavour.
I actually don't have this problem. A lot of things programmers get hung up on is just OCD stuff that don't actually improve anything.
I once named a function
I once named a function
findGreatestCommonDenominatorGCDOfFraction(numerator: int, denominator: int) -> int
Why do you have GreatestCommonDenominator and GCD in that function name?
Search. But even without search does having GCD in the name matter? No. It literally does not harm the program or understanding of the program in any way.
Even so, the majority of programmers will have a tendency to react to this as emotionally wrong. Then they attempt to rationalize this explanation with some form of reasoning. Try to catch this in yourself as it could be happening Right now as you read this.
You feel it's wrong but not from the composition of logical explanations. The feeling of wrongness forms first than you try to search for facts to rationalize your feeling.
Let me be clear. There is nothing logically harmful with that name but most programmers feel there is. This type of OCD tendency accounts for about 50% requests in code reviews. Ultimately useless changes to satisfy some OCD tendency.
Even so, the majority of programmers will have a tendency to react to this as emotionally wrong. Then they attempt to rationalize this explanation with some form of reasoning. Try to catch this in yourself as it could be happening Right now as you read this.
You feel it's wrong but not from the composition of logical explanations. The feeling of wrongness forms first than you try to search for facts to rationalize your feeling.
Let me be clear. There is nothing logically harmful with that name but most programmers feel there is. This type of OCD tendency accounts for about 50% requests in code reviews. Ultimately useless changes to satisfy some OCD tendency.
Excel has versioning now! But it doesn’t work when people email around hard copies instead of links to the shared file, which they still constantly do. >:-O
One of the problems with Excel at scale is that different departments within the same organization might use completely different approaches. Different people in the same department night. When you add versioning what you may end up with is an out-of-date "master" that's occasionally updated from the spreadsheets everyone is still passing around via email.
The email thing happens because that's how people who use Excel handle versioning. They'll end up with nested folders of emailed spreadsheets they can refer to or import into their personal approach. This works well for them, especially since they might work offline frequently.
The email thing happens because that's how people who use Excel handle versioning. They'll end up with nested folders of emailed spreadsheets they can refer to or import into their personal approach. This works well for them, especially since they might work offline frequently.
> email around hard copies
I get what you mean but...
I get what you mean but...
>instead of links to the shared file
So you mean Excel 365, not desktop Excel?
So you mean Excel 365, not desktop Excel?
Could mean links in the form of SharePoint / OneNote location of a spreadsheet file to edit with desktop Excel.
This is everywhere, and there is no escape.
I do occasionally blow things in to Postgres for my own sanity, but it usually isn't worth it, and even when it is, data goes back out to other people in CSV.
As just one example, if your secops department uses Qualys (and they probably do), that forces your secops department to use it, which means everyone who has to interact with them does.
Everything about internal budgeting is a pile of spreadsheets that gets thrown around.
Hell, when I moved one of our data centers recently, that process with the new DC was all all Excel sheets, despite the fact that we have DCIMs on both ends.
There is just no escape.
I do occasionally blow things in to Postgres for my own sanity, but it usually isn't worth it, and even when it is, data goes back out to other people in CSV.
As just one example, if your secops department uses Qualys (and they probably do), that forces your secops department to use it, which means everyone who has to interact with them does.
Everything about internal budgeting is a pile of spreadsheets that gets thrown around.
Hell, when I moved one of our data centers recently, that process with the new DC was all all Excel sheets, despite the fact that we have DCIMs on both ends.
There is just no escape.
The alternative is to have these business processes managed using internally developed software that may or may not be supported as time passes...
excel via email might (unfortunately) very well be the more robust and reliable way to go here
excel via email might (unfortunately) very well be the more robust and reliable way to go here
And with shared updatable spreadsheets (i.e. Google Sheets or Office 360) it's even better.
SMEs are going to be way more likely to throw together a spreadsheet to accomplish some immediate goal than they are to sit down with an internal software project manager and spend hours educating them on the problem to be solved and writing "user stories"
SMEs are going to be way more likely to throw together a spreadsheet to accomplish some immediate goal than they are to sit down with an internal software project manager and spend hours educating them on the problem to be solved and writing "user stories"
Business moves at the speed of now.
This sounds like a '90s marketing meme -- do I have that right? I didn't enter the industry until after.
It sounded like I had heard that in a commercial when I was a kid, but all I could find was “move at the speed of business”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ijaz9OaCo7Y
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ijaz9OaCo7Y
It probably is but I mean that excel and email solve problems right now, despite having flaws
Interesting, since they have Honeycode..."Looks like a spreadsheet,
works like a database"
[deleted]
And also considering how much in house software development there is...
Yes, but you can't realistically create a web app for every spreadsheet that is out there. Only when it would truly add value to the team over the long-term, does it make sense. In my experience, this is done when the spreadsheet stops scaling to the number of people that need access to the data or systems that need said data.
Always interesting to see comments from people who worked at Amazon. I did a stint, and I hated it, but I am always trying to get a read on if I was just unlucky, or if I can fairly draw a broader conclusion about Amazon overall.
I was actually working for a company that had been acquired by Amazon several years earlier, and I was working on a non-feature team. So on the one hand, maybe my bad experience was that it wasn't "Amazon proper," or maybe the lesson is "be sure to work on software the visibly provides profit and avoid working on software that merely keeps the company going as a viable venture."
OTOH, we were pretty well integrated with Amazon at this point. A lot of people from Amazon proper had transferred here, because it had a reputation as having a much better culture. The vesting schedule was much better, for instance. So maybe I just picked the wrong team -- there's probably something to the "avoid working in a cost-center" lesson.
Then again, there's so many stories of people who have had a bad experience, that being "unlucky" seems to happen more often than seems optimal.
I did learn a ton. A lot of the most valuable lessons in life generally come from hard experience, and work life is no exception. Still, I can't say I'd recommend actively _seeking out_ such experiences.
I was actually working for a company that had been acquired by Amazon several years earlier, and I was working on a non-feature team. So on the one hand, maybe my bad experience was that it wasn't "Amazon proper," or maybe the lesson is "be sure to work on software the visibly provides profit and avoid working on software that merely keeps the company going as a viable venture."
OTOH, we were pretty well integrated with Amazon at this point. A lot of people from Amazon proper had transferred here, because it had a reputation as having a much better culture. The vesting schedule was much better, for instance. So maybe I just picked the wrong team -- there's probably something to the "avoid working in a cost-center" lesson.
Then again, there's so many stories of people who have had a bad experience, that being "unlucky" seems to happen more often than seems optimal.
I did learn a ton. A lot of the most valuable lessons in life generally come from hard experience, and work life is no exception. Still, I can't say I'd recommend actively _seeking out_ such experiences.
As a former amazonian, this one hits close to home. Especially the part about internal tools duct taped together. And most work being simply to stop hemorrhaging and bleeding.
"Everything is Urgent (but takes forever)"
Sounds like my first job out of college (it was early 1990s, big consulting shop).
There was a ton of pressure to arrive early, stay late, 55-60 hour weeks were normal, continually document progress on your tasks, but the project overall was well behind schedule and what had been completed didn't really work.
We got paid straight overtime after 40 hours, and I didn't have much else to do with my time, so it wasn't all bad. I only did it for about a year. It was a good reference for my next job.
Young people can afford a few years in the salt mines to get some perspective.
Sounds like my first job out of college (it was early 1990s, big consulting shop).
There was a ton of pressure to arrive early, stay late, 55-60 hour weeks were normal, continually document progress on your tasks, but the project overall was well behind schedule and what had been completed didn't really work.
We got paid straight overtime after 40 hours, and I didn't have much else to do with my time, so it wasn't all bad. I only did it for about a year. It was a good reference for my next job.
Young people can afford a few years in the salt mines to get some perspective.
I worked on a big team at Microsoft about 8 years ago. The overall project was behind so they started buying us dinner every night until we could stay late and get back on schedule. The sub team that I worked on wasn't behind at all so I just went home like normal every day.
After a few days of this my manager pulled me aside saying that some of the higher ups had noticed I wasn't staying late with the rest of the team. Of course I wasn't. I didn't have any work to do. I started showing up to the team dinners, but it seems the damage was done. My next review went poorly and I immediately started looking for a new job because I didn't want to deal with that bullshit anymore.
Coincidentally, I believe that was the last review Microsoft did with their infamous stack ranking so maybe the next one would have gone better.
After a few days of this my manager pulled me aside saying that some of the higher ups had noticed I wasn't staying late with the rest of the team. Of course I wasn't. I didn't have any work to do. I started showing up to the team dinners, but it seems the damage was done. My next review went poorly and I immediately started looking for a new job because I didn't want to deal with that bullshit anymore.
Coincidentally, I believe that was the last review Microsoft did with their infamous stack ranking so maybe the next one would have gone better.
"How manual most of the processes were" - manual processes are more durable to turnover
"Documentation is very important at Amazon" - helps alleviate the impact of constant turnover
"Teams are fragile" - um, because of turnover?
"Everything is urgent" - indirectly because of turnover, because if you don't nag people to enable your deliverables, you get fired.
"Everything is built in house" - helps make you harder to fire, gives you bully power over other new hires since you know it top to bottom, protects you from the organization that is trying to constantly turn over people
"Documentation is very important at Amazon" - helps alleviate the impact of constant turnover
"Teams are fragile" - um, because of turnover?
"Everything is urgent" - indirectly because of turnover, because if you don't nag people to enable your deliverables, you get fired.
"Everything is built in house" - helps make you harder to fire, gives you bully power over other new hires since you know it top to bottom, protects you from the organization that is trying to constantly turn over people
I left Amazon after 11 months as a new college grad in engineering. As others have noted, Amazon’s RSU vesting structure is blatantly designed with the expectation that many (most?) new hires will leave after only 1-2 years. When I was there, the typical plan backloaded the bulk of the vest amount in the third and fourth year of employment. Contrast this with Google or many other tech employers who distribute RSU vesting evenly across the term of the plan. One of many reasons I’m glad I left such an anti-employee company.
Depending on OP's exact start date, the value of their RSU grant may be lower than when it was originally granted, making it easier to jump ship: https://finance.google.com/quote/AMZN:NASDAQ?window=1Y
This makes me wonder how much complexity can they grow until it's not sustainable by the culture? At what point smart talent would say enough is enough and start hiring average joe's? How would that be reflected to customers?
[deleted]
Worked there from 2011-2012 at the then LAB126(Cupertino) on the kindle Fire and project. Was a total dumpster fire filled with Ex Apple folks who liked to throw their egos adound(this was when Jobs was still alive). Because I was in the devices teams traveled to china 4 times within the year, got burnt out by my next level managers and his managers and finally quit after taking in my singnon bonus. Took me a decade to get over that experience and now I am back to the races this time interviewing for Level5 software engineering roles with the MAAGMA(F went meta)companies.
Sounds like just another day in the consumer electronics world …
Were you working on electrical systems or mechanical?
How did the switch to software engineering go for you / what made you switch?
I wouldn't wish the byzantine nightmare that is Cognito on my worst enemy.
Cognito is one of the worst. Try the CloudHSM sometime if you're not feeling suicidal.
The whole Amplify/AppSync stack is another massive tire fire.
The whole Amplify/AppSync stack is another massive tire fire.
Do you have any recommendations for authentication services? I agree Cognito is not a good tool. However, it does integrate well with other AWS services (ex: Api gateway).
If there is a 3rd party service or tool that we can use instead of Cognito and if it also works well with other AWS services (Amplify, Api gateway) that would be awesome.
If there is a 3rd party service or tool that we can use instead of Cognito and if it also works well with other AWS services (Amplify, Api gateway) that would be awesome.
Auth0 or Okta and yes, neither is AWS native but they are much better authentication services. Okta acquired Auth0 about a year ago so I expect some consolidation of features at some point but as far as I know that has not happened yet.
Had similar experience with another large enterprise. I always wondered how come those companies can survive with such friction. Building small internal application was costing millions, 500x more that what you can build as a startup. It took me 3 years to quit.
Also why do you want to work for Amazon and Google? There are many great people there, you will not be noticed. Work for a smaller company, they will pay you more, appreciate everything you do and you will be much happier!
Also why do you want to work for Amazon and Google? There are many great people there, you will not be noticed. Work for a smaller company, they will pay you more, appreciate everything you do and you will be much happier!
[deleted]
I've had this realization at every company I've worked for, big or small. Not sure why I'm still surprised by it:
"The most surprising thing I encountered when joining was how manual the vast majority of processes are. It blew my mind how many business critical processes were managed with excel spreadsheets being shared via email chains. It is incredible how flexible and effective Excel is for such a wide variety of use-cases."
"The most surprising thing I encountered when joining was how manual the vast majority of processes are. It blew my mind how many business critical processes were managed with excel spreadsheets being shared via email chains. It is incredible how flexible and effective Excel is for such a wide variety of use-cases."
This is really insightful. Makes me wonder how this compares to other FAANG companies. Are there other essays that capture the on-the-ground experiences so well?
I would tell you you’re going to get the same problem regardless: this isn’t representative and due to scale can never capture the on the ground experience.
Amazon is the best and worst place I’ve worked.
Amazon is the best and worst place I’ve worked.
I glanced through the leadership principles and laughed a bit. I feel sorry for the people who think they have to put up with that bullshit.
It all boils down to making the employees working as hard as possible, that's the single reason those principles exist. To make specially young and clueless employees forget it's just a job, because hey, it must be an obsession!
If you are young, this may seem normal i guess but I would never ever touch amazon.
It all boils down to making the employees working as hard as possible, that's the single reason those principles exist. To make specially young and clueless employees forget it's just a job, because hey, it must be an obsession!
If you are young, this may seem normal i guess but I would never ever touch amazon.
Current Amazon employee here.
> It all boils down to making the employees working as hard as possible
This has not been my experience. The way I've looked at it as, these are more explicit ground rules for how decisions are made. At most other places I've worked, the mechanisms for making decisions was often quite arbitrary, and boiling down to whatever the most senior person in the room wants. When the Leadership Principles are done well, you'll see there are checks and balances built in. For example: yes, we have "customer obsession," and we try to work hard for customers, but if my boss told me to work unreasonable hours, he would fail in the "Earn Trust" area, and he would be in danger of losing his team.
I've found my work-life balance at Amazon to be pretty reasonable, and much better than pretty much any where else I've worked.
> It all boils down to making the employees working as hard as possible
This has not been my experience. The way I've looked at it as, these are more explicit ground rules for how decisions are made. At most other places I've worked, the mechanisms for making decisions was often quite arbitrary, and boiling down to whatever the most senior person in the room wants. When the Leadership Principles are done well, you'll see there are checks and balances built in. For example: yes, we have "customer obsession," and we try to work hard for customers, but if my boss told me to work unreasonable hours, he would fail in the "Earn Trust" area, and he would be in danger of losing his team.
I've found my work-life balance at Amazon to be pretty reasonable, and much better than pretty much any where else I've worked.
There's actually a more specific leadership principle right now for bad managers
"strive to be the world's best employer"
[deleted]
As another old guy: Amen. I love being productive, but hate being pressured. All these FAANG jobs sound like the opposite. No thanks.
Leadership principles feature in normal employee life in exactly two circumstances: when you are doing interview loops, and when you need to win an argument, eg with some jobsworth sales person who wants you to over-promise to a customer.
They’re actually good principles just not followed at all by management.
> When you operate at this type of scale, centralization is the enemy of efficiency. This is a paradox. In order to be efficient on a macro level, it requires being (very) inefficient at the micro level.
Counterexample: amazon
if every team is reinventing square wheels, they are adding a lot of inefficiencies which worsens the situation at macro level.
Counterexample: amazon
if every team is reinventing square wheels, they are adding a lot of inefficiencies which worsens the situation at macro level.
But if every team has to wait for planning from a centralized decision maker who doesn't have all the context, they won't get any important work done as well. Or they loose the motivation that comes with owning services yourself. A paradox, as the author wrote.
Startups are also duplicating the work of each other, and succeed against big companies because this makes them more agile. I always thought that seeing internal orgs as startups was the master stroke of Amazon and the reason for its many product successes -- but it has the downsides described in the article.
Startups are also duplicating the work of each other, and succeed against big companies because this makes them more agile. I always thought that seeing internal orgs as startups was the master stroke of Amazon and the reason for its many product successes -- but it has the downsides described in the article.
I am a retired electrical engineer and have worked for various power utilities throughout the years. I have never experienced anything close to this, and have mostly good memories. After reading through the comments here, it sounds like most FAANG companies truly suck. I don’t know how you deal with them.
> When I read through they offer they were pushing aggressively for a start date (2 weeks from the offer).
Huh, in Norway the normal resignation period is 3 months. Maybe long, but goes both ways, so you always know your job isn't swept away from under your feet one day.
Huh, in Norway the normal resignation period is 3 months. Maybe long, but goes both ways, so you always know your job isn't swept away from under your feet one day.
3 months? So if you accept an offer today, it would be customary to stay until April?
That's incredible. How are job tenures in Norway? Where I am, lots of people stay 14 + or - 4 months typically.
That's incredible. How are job tenures in Norway? Where I am, lots of people stay 14 + or - 4 months typically.
Yeah, you would start your new job at May 1st if you sent in your resignation during January. It's a bit long I feel, when I first resigned last year (in January, even), I mentally started to check out towards the end. A month or two is fine to wrap things up. But 3 months + what's left of the current month was a bit much. But as I said, it goes both ways, and it's almost impossible to get fired here, so it's worth it for the peace of mind knowing you'll always get paid next week, month etc.
Where I worked before the avg employee had worked there for about 3-4 years, and that number was heavily influenced by the new hires not having had the opportunity to work that long yet, even. I feel that's true for many of my friends as well, those having switched a few jobs since graduating have stayed avg ~3 years.
Where I worked before the avg employee had worked there for about 3-4 years, and that number was heavily influenced by the new hires not having had the opportunity to work that long yet, even. I feel that's true for many of my friends as well, those having switched a few jobs since graduating have stayed avg ~3 years.
In many places in Europe it's 1 month for regular roles and 2 months for leadership.
And it's 3 or 6 months for being fired.
And it's 3 or 6 months for being fired.
Poland also has 3 months (on the most popular type of job contract). If you just joined you are on a 'test period' of sorts where the notice is 2 weeks and after that ends (3 months as well I think, but maybe this may vary) you have the 3 months notice.
Note that if both parties agree it can end sooner, they can also fire you straight up and forbid you working if they don't want you to but they still need to pay your salary for the entire notice period.
Note that if both parties agree it can end sooner, they can also fire you straight up and forbid you working if they don't want you to but they still need to pay your salary for the entire notice period.
Only if you worked for 10 years in the same company. 1 month is the regular for <5 years tenure. However, the employee may actually demand 3 months.
According to a half remembered article , average retention is about 10 months, so when I saw the headline I assumed this was the topic. Amazon turn over more than their total workforce, every year.
This includes all staff yes, but still shocking. If true.
This includes all staff yes, but still shocking. If true.
I wonder how Jeff Bezos Leadership Principles competes with Charles Koch's Secrets of Success. At times these have a cult-like following. And both companies are among the largestpublic and private in the world.
As someone who's preparing for a job interview, this post was revealing.
long time lurker, finally qualified to comment on a post.
I've been with amazon for 8 years (still an employee) as a software engineer. I've concluded that your experience at amazon - both work life balance and technical - is entirely dependent on your skip manager and your org.
I started with Amazon in the bay area. When I joined we were still in the very early days of our project. The work was awesome, and it felt like we were creating great things. Unfortunately, the ops burden (oncall) became way too much for our team to handle and the quality of life plummeted. My existence during those days was pure pain. From there I relocated (through Amazon) to Seattle to work on something else. I did the move with the promise that I'd immediately get to work on a cool project, but I ended up sitting around doing nothing for months. I didn't even have a desk. Once the project finally started though, things become great. Both of these teams had different VPs, and the cultures of each org were very different as well. My experience in the bay area started off very positively, and then become extremely shitty. My experience in Seattle started off extremely shitty, but then it turned into the most fun 2 years of coding I've done.
Additionally, different orgs do things differently. AWS does things different from how Alexa/Retail/Music/Movies/etc do things. A good example of this: Twitch isn't fully integrated with all of Amazon's internal systems (see recent news for reference). Some teams don't have oncall rotations, other teams have brutal ones. One of my previous directors used to do bi-weekly (once every two weeks) fireside chats. I haven't even met my current director, and I've been under him for a year and a half.
If you're entering the company from the outside, you might very well be walking into a dumpster fire of a team. If you're inside the company, it's really easy to spot which teams are garbage and which ones are not. Below is my guide:
Red Flags: - No nearby principals (no tech guidance at the director level) - Too many principals (bureaucratic arm chair engineering hell) - Average tenure of engineers on the team is SDE1 (trash code) - No PRFAQ/BRDs (projects have no north star, scope is all over the place, dumpster fire product team) - Ops burden is too high (you can check a teams ticket queue on SIM, high ticket count = bad oncall) .... and many more ....
Doing team switches are pretty straight forward as well (ymmv). Once you're in the door at amazon, do your research and determine whether you need to switch teams ASAP. You can search any engineer's username and look at what code they're contributing. It's pretty easy to investigate the code base you'll be working on in advance of joining the team to determine its health.
Regarding tooling, amazon does and doesn't have great tooling. There are things like Pipelines, CR/Crux, Sim/TT, Apollo, iGraph, etc that are actually world class tools and don't really have any rivals out there (yet!). Then there are other things like people wanting to fork bootstrap and react so that they can rebrand it as an amazon version.... In one of my early teams, I saw the SDETs (test engineers) metaphorically go to war with each other to write the best end-to-end integration test framework. There were four frameworks in the end.
Regarding the leadership principles. Those are predominately tools to be used during the decision making process. There is this concept called "one way door decisions" which would be any decision that is made such that the amount of effort needed to undo that decision is not feasible. Basically if you take that door, you can't come back out. When faced with a one way door decision, you use the leadership principles to decide.
Are you on a fixed timeline because your deliverable is tied to AWS Re:Invent? Then you need to optimize for Bias for Action and Deliver Results. Are you about to create a core platform service that many many teams will build on? Obviously you need to optimize for Insist on the Highest Standards, if not you screw over your org for years.
The leadership principles contradict each other, but that generally gives you an idea of what's being gained and lost in the decision making process.
For software engineers, I would not exclude amazon as an employer just because you read some stuff online. If you can get in, do it and stick around for a year or two at least. The amount that you learn in such a short amount of time is significant, and you can take that experience with you anywhere. If you're having a bad experience at Amazon, remember that the company is massive. You can switch orgs and it'll feel like you just changed companies (only the tooling is the same).
Final thoughts: don't ignore your mental health! I have never had a manager actually ask about my mental well being before. I don't think that culture is actually fostered at all at Amazon. Use your vacation time if you have it, switch teams if you need too, or just straight up quit.
I've been with amazon for 8 years (still an employee) as a software engineer. I've concluded that your experience at amazon - both work life balance and technical - is entirely dependent on your skip manager and your org.
I started with Amazon in the bay area. When I joined we were still in the very early days of our project. The work was awesome, and it felt like we were creating great things. Unfortunately, the ops burden (oncall) became way too much for our team to handle and the quality of life plummeted. My existence during those days was pure pain. From there I relocated (through Amazon) to Seattle to work on something else. I did the move with the promise that I'd immediately get to work on a cool project, but I ended up sitting around doing nothing for months. I didn't even have a desk. Once the project finally started though, things become great. Both of these teams had different VPs, and the cultures of each org were very different as well. My experience in the bay area started off very positively, and then become extremely shitty. My experience in Seattle started off extremely shitty, but then it turned into the most fun 2 years of coding I've done.
Additionally, different orgs do things differently. AWS does things different from how Alexa/Retail/Music/Movies/etc do things. A good example of this: Twitch isn't fully integrated with all of Amazon's internal systems (see recent news for reference). Some teams don't have oncall rotations, other teams have brutal ones. One of my previous directors used to do bi-weekly (once every two weeks) fireside chats. I haven't even met my current director, and I've been under him for a year and a half.
If you're entering the company from the outside, you might very well be walking into a dumpster fire of a team. If you're inside the company, it's really easy to spot which teams are garbage and which ones are not. Below is my guide:
Red Flags: - No nearby principals (no tech guidance at the director level) - Too many principals (bureaucratic arm chair engineering hell) - Average tenure of engineers on the team is SDE1 (trash code) - No PRFAQ/BRDs (projects have no north star, scope is all over the place, dumpster fire product team) - Ops burden is too high (you can check a teams ticket queue on SIM, high ticket count = bad oncall) .... and many more ....
Doing team switches are pretty straight forward as well (ymmv). Once you're in the door at amazon, do your research and determine whether you need to switch teams ASAP. You can search any engineer's username and look at what code they're contributing. It's pretty easy to investigate the code base you'll be working on in advance of joining the team to determine its health.
Regarding tooling, amazon does and doesn't have great tooling. There are things like Pipelines, CR/Crux, Sim/TT, Apollo, iGraph, etc that are actually world class tools and don't really have any rivals out there (yet!). Then there are other things like people wanting to fork bootstrap and react so that they can rebrand it as an amazon version.... In one of my early teams, I saw the SDETs (test engineers) metaphorically go to war with each other to write the best end-to-end integration test framework. There were four frameworks in the end.
Regarding the leadership principles. Those are predominately tools to be used during the decision making process. There is this concept called "one way door decisions" which would be any decision that is made such that the amount of effort needed to undo that decision is not feasible. Basically if you take that door, you can't come back out. When faced with a one way door decision, you use the leadership principles to decide.
Are you on a fixed timeline because your deliverable is tied to AWS Re:Invent? Then you need to optimize for Bias for Action and Deliver Results. Are you about to create a core platform service that many many teams will build on? Obviously you need to optimize for Insist on the Highest Standards, if not you screw over your org for years.
The leadership principles contradict each other, but that generally gives you an idea of what's being gained and lost in the decision making process.
For software engineers, I would not exclude amazon as an employer just because you read some stuff online. If you can get in, do it and stick around for a year or two at least. The amount that you learn in such a short amount of time is significant, and you can take that experience with you anywhere. If you're having a bad experience at Amazon, remember that the company is massive. You can switch orgs and it'll feel like you just changed companies (only the tooling is the same).
Final thoughts: don't ignore your mental health! I have never had a manager actually ask about my mental well being before. I don't think that culture is actually fostered at all at Amazon. Use your vacation time if you have it, switch teams if you need too, or just straight up quit.
Any insight you can offer into AWS support roles?
I got an email from an Amazon recruiter the other day. I thought it was an invite to a phone screen but it was actually a link to my dev plan.
I got a linkedin ping from an Amazon recruiter which I politely declined. He replied: "Great! The next step in our recruiting process is a short phone screen. Call me to set it up!"
Dev plan?
Speaking of Amazon, does anyone have any insight into working conditions, etc in the AWS cloud support jobs? Interviewing for this soon.
Is AWS terrible to work in as a PM-T? These stories in the comments are pretty somber, but not sure if it’s isolated by role.
I’m impressed by your really clean website. Could you please share what stack and backend platforms you’re using for this?
I thought you said 10 minutes!
Given today's turnover rates, this isn't even a sensation.
Given today's turnover rates, this isn't even a sensation.
hey congrats! are you starting some side project?
Are there any good FANG size companies? Amazon sucks, Facebook is unethical as most Social Media and ad selling. Crypto is a scam. It seems everyone is hiring but I struggle to find a good company to work for. Google perhaps?
How long before admitting for a FAANG has the same notoriety as saying you work for Walmart, McDonald's or Target?
Ah, at least there wasn't a CCTV camera by your desk that docked your pay for scratching your arse :)
"Urgent to not block progress, but also ironic that they are asking a person who has no clue what they are doing to deliver critical work"
Friend of mine started a role there (this was 4-5 years ago) and was fired (sorry... more or less asked to leave, being told he could keep his signing bonus if he just left) within about six weeks because he wasn't immediately delivering on some insane amounts of work. Truly, he recapped it for me, the expectations were absolutely incredible and I'd consider him a hard worker who has found a ton of success in his current role.
I bag on Amazon a lot on here (which if I were to review with my therapist is likely because I had an absolutely HORRENDOUS experience in an interview loop with them my first step out of college that still makes me nervous in interviews, even 15 years later). But living in Seattle, a notable chunk of my social circle works there. I'd say a few enjoy the scale of things they get to work on or perhaps the brand name, but overall none of them ever talk about liking the work environment/balance/culture.
One friend, at a director level, just quit on a whim because he came back from parental leave and his direct reports had all been put on a PIP while he was out. He told his VP to fuck off, left, and is now on sabbatical. I've never seen him so happy.