I remember reading that quote about "Amazon being where overachievers go to feel bad" during my own stint at Amazon and wow was that true. I didn’t realize how much tension I was carrying until I left, always on the edge of burning out but still falling short. It wasn't until I started my next job that I could take a look around and go "Wait, no. I do understand how to build good software!"
They could use this post as part of the exit paperwork you need to fill out :)
ps I really want to defend PowerPoint but .. life after amazon .. I have encountered orgs and leaders that seemed to value and pride themselves by how many words they can cram onto a single slide.
No kidding or exaggerating here.. I observed some decks from leaders where the font was squished so small, that nothing on the slide was even legible when transmitted over Microsoft Teams video compression codec ..
Funnily - I feel that great presentations are inversely correlated with number of words. I do actually love great oratory - but then you can't really expect many words on the screen.
After about 10 years each at Microsoft and Amazon, I have no problem saying I knew way more a-holes at msft than at amzn.
To me the "amazon-a-hole" thing is 90% about disagree-and-commit culture. As humans we evolved a strong social drive to "go along to get along". At amzn we enouraged ourselves to (respectfully and constructively, hopefully) always challenge assumptions and propose alternatives. And we held each other accountable to do that, through that D&C leadership principle.
As a people manager, I find I really have to coach individuals to become conscious of when they find themselves going-along-to-get-along, and to find ways to break free of that social gravity-well. I remind them (and sometimes remind myself) that the company pays a lot of money for your thoughts and expertise - you owe it to your company and your colleagues, and yourself, to share the value of your experience! It is not only valuable in direct terms of solving a problem (or avoiding a mistake), it can be an opportunity to broaden your scope of influence.
And if you're outvoted or outweighed on an argument, ok then, commit to the consensus -- but at least you can rest easy, knowing you tried. (And if it later turns out you were right .. well that's another LP to score a point on .. make sure the right people remember the alternatives you proposed -- just don't run around saying "I told you so" to everyone who was on the other side of that discussion :)
But yes, outside of Amazon, you really have to bend sideways sometimes to make sure all this is done in a constructive and respectful way -- else risk being seen as an a-hole.
That's a super great comment, and most amazing advice on helping folks break free of social cohesion.
FWIW - I don't really remember feeling people were assholes overall. Some exceptions but it's a large sample size so there's always going to be that. I'm mostly trying to hit on that lots and lots of people seemed to expect ex-Amazon folks to be jerks. So better to know than not know.
Also I feel you deserved a bazillion upvote points (if that was a substack thing) for including "gravity-well" in a way that makes sense. ;-)
There’s an irony in all if this. The company says that it’s trying to “truth seek” and not succumb to “social cohesion”. Yet the biggest instance of groupthink I have ever seen in my career was during my time at Amazon. Mostly around the transparency, or lack thereof, around performance management. Managers/leadership were convinced the process was wholly transparent despite contrary evidence I thought (and still think) was clear as day. The story that the company told itself had become more powerful than the truth of reality.
I think a lesson is: don’t become overconfident.
It always made me wonder: for a company that says it’s trying to de-bias itself of groupthink, how did it end up so susceptible to groupthink. How can you go so far off the rails?
I do not agree with your characterization of the 2015 as an “uninformed hit piece.”
I read that article at the time. I then worked at Amazon from 2019-2021. After I left, I re-read the article. It was honestly hard to read. I had in fact experienced many of the things which I’d been told by fellow Amazonians were BS or “fake news.” It hit me in the gut in a whole new way. It may be an unflattering portrayal, but none of the generalizations about the company being high-pressure, intense, bruising or cutthroat are inconsistent with what I experienced.
Keep in mind, the author of that NYT story, Jodi Kantor, also broke the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse story in 2017. She went on to win a Pulitzer Prize and ignited a social movement (“me too”). The idea that Kantor is some hack journalist is facially laughable.
What did Harvey Weinstein say about Kantor’s story after it broke? It was “patently false” and “off base”.
Thanks for reading my post. I’m truly sorry you had a bad experience at Amazon. That sucks.
I believe I used the phrase “partially uninformed” and then spoke specifically to a part that felt true. So I don’t feel I was discounting the entire piece from The NY Times. Different orgs had very different cultures and when folks asked me about it at the time I definitely would say parts rang true. And for several things I hadn’t experienced I would say they “rang possible.”
I’ve yet to meet someone from Amazon who would disagree it was high pressure or intellectually cut throat. So are many workplaces.
But - there were things that were presented as nefarious but had simple and reasonable explanations. A specific example was “secret feedback” which I know was neither intended or generally used the way it was described. That’s what my comment was referencing.
It just wasn’t an evil monoculture from my and hundreds of people I knew’s experience. It could be rough - but I learned a lot about how to operate and I highly value that.
It’s possible that a workplace can be very direct, care a huge amount about customers, care too little about employees in others, and do things that work well in many (but not all cases) yet also be misunderstood.
I’m 1000% sure I didn’t call the author a hack. And being right about Weinstein isn’t the same as being right about a highly complex organization that does thing things in peculiar ways.
I wouldn’t have told you the Amazon story is “fake news” in 2015. I would have said it was complex and the journalist didn’t reflect everything in the way I thought was accurate.
I also think reading both parts of what I wrote is hardly a glowing bit of propaganda for Amazon fwiw. I did use the phrase Stockholm Syndrome didn’t I? ;-)
I do appreciate you reading and hope you’ll consider continuing to do so.
I still think that calling 2015 NYT article a "hit piece" is a poor mischaracterization. You did not call the authors "hacks". But I read that phrase as a tacit disparagement of their character and motives. Saying that a journalist wrote a "hit piece" is not exactly a compliment - even if one ads the qualifier of "partially uninformed".
You know, I was going to say that something could be "partially uninformed", "correct in theme and in specific circumstances" and a "hit piece" all at once.
I remain of the view that there is a lot more diversity of thought and action than the article represented. As well as took some things which I personally knew worked differently as described.
But then I realized I'm trying to defend being snarky when that wasn't my point. Especially as the article that literally starts by saying that other companies act more consistently positively toward employee's needs and development. After an opening quote from The Wire about doing prison time.
So…. I just edited the phrase to refer to my perspective as it being partially uninformed with parts that resonated. If you own one of the original subscriber emails I suppose now you have a collector's edition. ;-)
I remain convinced that I worked with great people, in an occasionally imperfect place, and learned more about operating and customer focus than I could have anywhere else in the same time period.
And yes, you certainly acknowledge some of the unglamorous parts of the work culture — “people development didn’t get a ton of time in most talent reviews” or you contrasted it with other workplaces — “if you had impactful results but the team didn’t feel supported, then you weren’t assured professional success” or “You may feel a lot less stress”
At the time, there was a widely shared “rebuttal” by a guy named Nick Ciubotariu. It was met with high praise from many Amaazonians. I believe Bezos himself plugged it. Nick C, however, did impugn Kantor’s reputation and character. So I was conflating your disagreements of the NYT article with Nick C’s (and the many Amazonians who agreed with him) more combative statements.
On your post as a whole: it strikes me a bit as like some kind of deprogramming. It reminds me of how people in the military returning from a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan have trouble adjusting to normal civilian life. They need help reintegrating into normal daily life.
I would have enjoyed this more as a PowerPoint. JK! What a beautiful piece, Rich, every paragraph hit home.
LOL. Maybe I should actually try that.
Really appreciate the kind words. I do hope it's useful to folks. Part 2 will be dropping around Thursday.
I remember reading that quote about "Amazon being where overachievers go to feel bad" during my own stint at Amazon and wow was that true. I didn’t realize how much tension I was carrying until I left, always on the edge of burning out but still falling short. It wasn't until I started my next job that I could take a look around and go "Wait, no. I do understand how to build good software!"
They could use this post as part of the exit paperwork you need to fill out :)
ps I really want to defend PowerPoint but .. life after amazon .. I have encountered orgs and leaders that seemed to value and pride themselves by how many words they can cram onto a single slide.
No kidding or exaggerating here.. I observed some decks from leaders where the font was squished so small, that nothing on the slide was even legible when transmitted over Microsoft Teams video compression codec ..
Laughing - because it's so true.
Funnily - I feel that great presentations are inversely correlated with number of words. I do actually love great oratory - but then you can't really expect many words on the screen.
After about 10 years each at Microsoft and Amazon, I have no problem saying I knew way more a-holes at msft than at amzn.
To me the "amazon-a-hole" thing is 90% about disagree-and-commit culture. As humans we evolved a strong social drive to "go along to get along". At amzn we enouraged ourselves to (respectfully and constructively, hopefully) always challenge assumptions and propose alternatives. And we held each other accountable to do that, through that D&C leadership principle.
As a people manager, I find I really have to coach individuals to become conscious of when they find themselves going-along-to-get-along, and to find ways to break free of that social gravity-well. I remind them (and sometimes remind myself) that the company pays a lot of money for your thoughts and expertise - you owe it to your company and your colleagues, and yourself, to share the value of your experience! It is not only valuable in direct terms of solving a problem (or avoiding a mistake), it can be an opportunity to broaden your scope of influence.
And if you're outvoted or outweighed on an argument, ok then, commit to the consensus -- but at least you can rest easy, knowing you tried. (And if it later turns out you were right .. well that's another LP to score a point on .. make sure the right people remember the alternatives you proposed -- just don't run around saying "I told you so" to everyone who was on the other side of that discussion :)
But yes, outside of Amazon, you really have to bend sideways sometimes to make sure all this is done in a constructive and respectful way -- else risk being seen as an a-hole.
That's a super great comment, and most amazing advice on helping folks break free of social cohesion.
FWIW - I don't really remember feeling people were assholes overall. Some exceptions but it's a large sample size so there's always going to be that. I'm mostly trying to hit on that lots and lots of people seemed to expect ex-Amazon folks to be jerks. So better to know than not know.
Also I feel you deserved a bazillion upvote points (if that was a substack thing) for including "gravity-well" in a way that makes sense. ;-)
There’s an irony in all if this. The company says that it’s trying to “truth seek” and not succumb to “social cohesion”. Yet the biggest instance of groupthink I have ever seen in my career was during my time at Amazon. Mostly around the transparency, or lack thereof, around performance management. Managers/leadership were convinced the process was wholly transparent despite contrary evidence I thought (and still think) was clear as day. The story that the company told itself had become more powerful than the truth of reality.
I think a lesson is: don’t become overconfident.
It always made me wonder: for a company that says it’s trying to de-bias itself of groupthink, how did it end up so susceptible to groupthink. How can you go so far off the rails?
I do not agree with your characterization of the 2015 as an “uninformed hit piece.”
I read that article at the time. I then worked at Amazon from 2019-2021. After I left, I re-read the article. It was honestly hard to read. I had in fact experienced many of the things which I’d been told by fellow Amazonians were BS or “fake news.” It hit me in the gut in a whole new way. It may be an unflattering portrayal, but none of the generalizations about the company being high-pressure, intense, bruising or cutthroat are inconsistent with what I experienced.
Keep in mind, the author of that NYT story, Jodi Kantor, also broke the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse story in 2017. She went on to win a Pulitzer Prize and ignited a social movement (“me too”). The idea that Kantor is some hack journalist is facially laughable.
What did Harvey Weinstein say about Kantor’s story after it broke? It was “patently false” and “off base”.
Thanks for reading my post. I’m truly sorry you had a bad experience at Amazon. That sucks.
I believe I used the phrase “partially uninformed” and then spoke specifically to a part that felt true. So I don’t feel I was discounting the entire piece from The NY Times. Different orgs had very different cultures and when folks asked me about it at the time I definitely would say parts rang true. And for several things I hadn’t experienced I would say they “rang possible.”
I’ve yet to meet someone from Amazon who would disagree it was high pressure or intellectually cut throat. So are many workplaces.
But - there were things that were presented as nefarious but had simple and reasonable explanations. A specific example was “secret feedback” which I know was neither intended or generally used the way it was described. That’s what my comment was referencing.
It just wasn’t an evil monoculture from my and hundreds of people I knew’s experience. It could be rough - but I learned a lot about how to operate and I highly value that.
It’s possible that a workplace can be very direct, care a huge amount about customers, care too little about employees in others, and do things that work well in many (but not all cases) yet also be misunderstood.
I’m 1000% sure I didn’t call the author a hack. And being right about Weinstein isn’t the same as being right about a highly complex organization that does thing things in peculiar ways.
I wouldn’t have told you the Amazon story is “fake news” in 2015. I would have said it was complex and the journalist didn’t reflect everything in the way I thought was accurate.
I also think reading both parts of what I wrote is hardly a glowing bit of propaganda for Amazon fwiw. I did use the phrase Stockholm Syndrome didn’t I? ;-)
I do appreciate you reading and hope you’ll consider continuing to do so.
One more follow up here.
I still think that calling 2015 NYT article a "hit piece" is a poor mischaracterization. You did not call the authors "hacks". But I read that phrase as a tacit disparagement of their character and motives. Saying that a journalist wrote a "hit piece" is not exactly a compliment - even if one ads the qualifier of "partially uninformed".
You know, I was going to say that something could be "partially uninformed", "correct in theme and in specific circumstances" and a "hit piece" all at once.
I remain of the view that there is a lot more diversity of thought and action than the article represented. As well as took some things which I personally knew worked differently as described.
But then I realized I'm trying to defend being snarky when that wasn't my point. Especially as the article that literally starts by saying that other companies act more consistently positively toward employee's needs and development. After an opening quote from The Wire about doing prison time.
So…. I just edited the phrase to refer to my perspective as it being partially uninformed with parts that resonated. If you own one of the original subscriber emails I suppose now you have a collector's edition. ;-)
I remain convinced that I worked with great people, in an occasionally imperfect place, and learned more about operating and customer focus than I could have anywhere else in the same time period.
Thanks Pat for the feedback!
That’s a fair reply, Rich.
And yes, you certainly acknowledge some of the unglamorous parts of the work culture — “people development didn’t get a ton of time in most talent reviews” or you contrasted it with other workplaces — “if you had impactful results but the team didn’t feel supported, then you weren’t assured professional success” or “You may feel a lot less stress”
Thanks for the reply, Rich.
Yes — you did not call Jodi Kantor a hack.
At the time, there was a widely shared “rebuttal” by a guy named Nick Ciubotariu. It was met with high praise from many Amaazonians. I believe Bezos himself plugged it. Nick C, however, did impugn Kantor’s reputation and character. So I was conflating your disagreements of the NYT article with Nick C’s (and the many Amazonians who agreed with him) more combative statements.
On your post as a whole: it strikes me a bit as like some kind of deprogramming. It reminds me of how people in the military returning from a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan have trouble adjusting to normal civilian life. They need help reintegrating into normal daily life.