[OJFord]

The more I read, the more I get the feeling that Amazon has a divide between technical (dev) roles, in which is it's largely similar to any other large somewhat "hip" company, and non-tech roles, in which it sounds like something of a sweatshop.

I'm not surprised to see you disagree with the commentary on the "leadership principles" -- they (at com/principles) seem to me almost totally generic.

[potatolicious]

I'm a former Amazonian - things are definitely worse for non-tech roles, but I wouldn't say that on the dev side things are "similar to any other large somewhat hip company".

To put in context - Amazon's typical engineering tenure (when I was there) was 18 months - that's engineering roles only. I've worked many jobs since and by a wide margin Amazon still has the highest engineering churn rate I've ever seen.

My personal take on this article is that it seems a bit exaggerated based on my experiences at the company, but otherwise largely accurate. I haven't seen anyone cry, but definitely a lot of shellshocked people wallowing at their desks after being openly reamed out by managers in front of their peers. The general culture is extremely dog eat dog, and in my 2 years there I saw a whole lot of behavior lacking in basic human decency/empathy, justified under the notion that "we're doing hard work with hard technology and have high standards and if you can't keep up you can wash out".

In all my jobs since Amazon I have never once encountered the level of hostility routinely and openly displayed between manager/subordinate and between peers that I saw there. I didn't think much of it at the time - that whole type of behavior was normalized - but it's only once I got out and worked at much friendlier, more collaborative places that I realized how insane and aberrant it is.

There's also sometimes this curious notion that this sort of culture is a requirement for doing meaningful things, and that ditching Amazon for a place with less toxic workplace culture necessarily means you won't be able to achieve great things. This is laughably false of course, and makes me wonder if the people perpetuating it have seen what other companies are doing.

[OJFord]

Oh okay, well scratch that then, that's interesting.

Yes I'm all for being "pushed to limits", but I don't think making employees feel like shit is the right way to do that.

I can't find it now, but what struck me most in the article was a quote about being pushed and pushed, finally achieving something great, but then it being nothing - like the best performance you can hope for is "acceptable".

Over-working for a crazy deadline is I think motivating, and an enjoyable sense of achievement for people that are in a position to do it (without dependents, etc.) - but that achievement at the end of the sprinted-marathon needs to be celebrated, and there needs to be a break before another. Otherwise it does just sound like a sweatshop.

[ljk]

> being openly reamed out by managers in front of their peers.

that's pretty unprofessional, does that happen a lot?

[potatolicious]

Not every day - but it happens often enough that it's no longer surprising or shocking to see it.

[aianus]

> I've worked many jobs since and by a wide margin Amazon still has the highest engineering churn rate I've ever seen.

This is probably because it's much easier to find a well paid engineering job elsewhere than for a non-tech role.