by xenocyon on 7/9/21, 5:16 PM with 282 comments
by neonate on 7/9/21, 7:13 PM
by qqtt on 7/9/21, 6:22 PM
The only "positive" here is that it can affect the individual's moral to know you are not meeting expectations - but that has to be communicated regardless. If it's understood it has to be communicated and there is a list specifically including the individual, it's up to the company to manage that communication in a supportive manner.
And the consequences of this secretive list are a culture of fear and uncertainty and doubt. Especially with the harsh consequences such as - if you leave while on this secretive list (which you cannot even know you are on) - you are ineligible for rehire.
The solution is not to maintain a secretive list of employees who have performance issues - it is to be fully transparent about those performance issues and destigmatize being included in this nebulous secretive list in the first place - through a culture of support and shared success.
Honestly it boggles my mind how Amazon managers accept this status quo at the scale that Amazon operates. It is so on it's face a recipe for having a toxic culture which breeds stress, doubt, and only serves to reinforce poor performance outcomes.
Out of all the things I've heard about Amazon culture for its software organization - this single thing (secretive lists of employees with performance issues with "never rehire" consequences that employees can't even understand they are on) symbolizes for me all the reasons I would avoid them as an employer. There is no way to have this process without creating a toxic culture.
by ozzythecat on 7/9/21, 6:35 PM
The headline is editorialized. IMO whether you’re told you’re in Focus or not is irrelevant. If your manager is telling you you’re not meeting expectations, that’s plenty of signal of what’s going on.
The discussion in this thread is written more as if Amazon is pushing out capable talent.
There’s a more fundamental question - are we saying once you get hired, your job should be permanent, regardless of your performance?
by ncmncm on 7/9/21, 8:49 PM
Thus, any indication that you have got onto such a list is a red warning: find another job somewhere else, and quickly. Do not wait to see if they will change their minds. They might decide not to fire you right away, but they will think of you, forever after, as a "problem employee". If you ever get off the list, you will go back on it the moment the length of your manager's list goes below quota. You may be sure that there is such a quota.
This is very much like the notion of "politically unreliable" in the Soviet countries, and in China. Corporate governance resembles nothing so much as Soviet governance. This is not an accident: Lenin was a huge admirer of the Ford Motor Company.
Being still-employed is a huge factor in how attractive you are to your immediate future employer. So, it is important to act fast. Part of why they try to keep the list secret is that they want to be who controls when you leave, not you. Managers typically only get points for firing you, not you quitting. (But Amazon's documented notion of "unregretted attrition" suggests it might be defined as somebody leaving who was on the list.)
by ToxicMegacolon on 7/9/21, 10:44 PM
Just look at the stock vesting schedule, its 5, 15, 40, 40. First two years you barely get any stock, and I believe the average time someone stays at amazon is around 1.5 years (I don't have latest data so maybe this is wrong)
On top of that, you have the pathetic 401k match (50% upto 2% of paycheck). Amazon's contribution to 401k vests after 3 years in the job, so you leave within the first 2 and you don't get anything. Not to mention the base salary cap of $160k.
Add to that the horrible WLB, I knew teams who'd get 40 high severity tickets in a week (And there are teams with much worse WLB). You are constantly waking up at 2-3AM in the night, and fixing fires for no extra pay.
Many times, Upper Management would dictate a timeline for your project, doesn't matter if it takes 4 months, we need it in 2 so get it done. This obviously leads to bad code. But there is no incentive within the company to fix/improve codebase, every thing is taped together, and On Call is there to tape things up some more so that they stay fixed. Even if you take the time and fix some of the tech debt, the company is not going to care and its not going to reward you.
Speaking of rewards, if the company stock grows (which it has for the past several years), and because of this growth you stand to make more than your Amazon decided Target Compensation, then you won't get any base salary increase even if you were the best employee Amazon has ever seen. You might get additional stocks, but those will vest 2 year later. So basically, you did great work for the company in 2021, as a result the company stock grows enough that you are not out of range for your role's compensation, so they don't increase your salary, and they give you stocks that vest in 2024, 3 years after the you did the work.
More often than not, I felt that most amazon employees (current and past) hate amazon. I have never seen a company being hated by its own workers with such fervor.
by ta984332444 on 7/9/21, 6:59 PM
I agree the lack of transparency on the focus is stupid (especially since it can prevent you from moving), but you don't wake up one day and end up fired. You will be put on a PIP first and be well aware of it (since you have to agree to the plan or take a payout to leave instead).
by aaomidi on 7/9/21, 6:28 PM
No one *wants* to work for you anymore. You don't need to recruit. If someone is desperate enough they'll let you know.
by kube-system on 7/9/21, 6:47 PM
As long you are effectively communicating performance on a regular basis, I don't really see the point in telling an employee that "we're formally thinking about firing you" other than dropping a morale bomb in the workplace. If you're telling an employee that their performance needs improvement in general, it stands to follow that termination is a possible result.
Either people improve when they're told their performance is bad, or they don't. Workplaces without formal PIPs don't tell employees to their face that they're thinking about firing them either. Not sure why the formal paperwork makes any difference.
Although maybe I'm missing something, I've never worked at a mega-corp.
by dkhenry on 7/9/21, 10:01 PM
While I have still had to fire plenty of people for performance even with this rule. I can also say that I have had multiple people actually improve their performance and get off the PiP which as I understand from talking to other managers is not a common occurrence.
by Zenst on 7/9/21, 6:26 PM
That would place Amazon to legally disclose if such an employee is on any list or anything else they have on them, be it paper or digital.
by mrorbitman on 7/9/21, 8:18 PM
The second the people around you don't believe you can cut it, it's already too late and best to find a gig elsewhere.
by quickthrower2 on 7/9/21, 7:06 PM
by MattGaiser on 7/9/21, 7:59 PM
by vjdingdong on 7/10/21, 1:40 AM
In comparison, I can only imagine what a hell Amazon must be, a soul-destroying place to work for most people who aren't in the top 25% or something like that. As an employer, Amazon sounds like an evil machine.
by NortySpock on 7/9/21, 6:40 PM
Wait, what's the point of putting someone on a PIP/PMP if you don't even tell them their performance needs to improve (or they need to jump ship)?
They aren't likely to change if you don't tell them to change.
by warmcat on 7/9/21, 11:24 PM
by JCM9 on 7/9/21, 11:29 PM
by nasalgoat on 7/9/21, 5:50 PM
by koolba on 7/9/21, 6:44 PM
by fridif on 7/10/21, 1:21 AM
Employment stability is much more important than what I call "alleged compensation".
They hire you promising $160,000 base and all this stock, and 6 months into stringing broken libraries together you are suddenly getting the feeling you won't be welcome at the company anymore.
by r0m4n0 on 7/9/21, 9:44 PM
Anecdotal but… I suppose they could be protecting themselves from these situations where once they have made up their mind, it’s probably in their best interest to see their everyday work ethic. I think most of us would like the chance to know whether they are doing a good job to improve, but this sounds like once they are on this list, their days are numbered
by phendrenad2 on 7/9/21, 6:47 PM
Of course the other, darker possibility is that this is an attempt to take the evil parts of the PIP and get rid of the actual improvement. Keep the "build a case against the employee so we can fire them without a lawsuit", ditch the "actually trying to improve their performance". I prefer to think this isn't the case.
by stevenalowe on 7/9/21, 6:50 PM
by ggm on 7/9/21, 10:01 PM
I don't understand how H/R and legal can sustain this. (I do understand that they have: I'm not that stupid. So there must be some underlying reason this is legal, but I suspect it's not well "tested" in all jurisdictions Amazon employs in)
by bencollier49 on 7/9/21, 7:16 PM
"If issues do arise, employers should make the employee aware of the shortfall in their performance as soon as possible. The employee should then be given a reasonable timescale to improve.
Employers should provide their employee with any relevant support and training in order to reach the required performance standard. They should then monitor and review the employee’s progress throughout the period assigned for improvement."
by balozi on 7/9/21, 6:56 PM
by gigatexal on 7/9/21, 6:49 PM
by zwaps on 7/10/21, 10:43 AM
Attrition is good for exploration and against other "stagnation" phenomena (textbook March/Levinthal early 90's). And if you are willing to throw aboard any ethics, then a "usable period" (pre burn-out) for some percentage of workers is a pretty good boost to performance.
A secret focus list is probably some "well" thought out mechanism (as in mechanism design) tuned precisely to kick out x% of people while setting incentives to self-identify (slackers vs. normal workers vs. workaholics) by generating uncertainty or ambiguity, thus generating some ideal workforce distribution: people who are doubtful are incentivized to just leave right away, people who are extremely competent are moderately pressured, people who are willing to grind themselves into dust for amazon do "okay" for as long as they are useful, and "normals" are retained probabilistically to the degree that their contributions are needed that quarter.
Much has been written about how these models don't reflect human behavior. Sadly, as a normative forcing function, they work out just fine. edit: in the short run, until such articles as op appear
by billllll on 7/9/21, 10:36 PM
A lot of Amazon's practices get really severe backlash online, and yet if working for Amazon is as bad as they say, how is Amazon one of the biggest employers of software engineers?
I personally buy into the hivemind and would not work for Amazon, but it seems to me like there is an incongruity between how bad their practices are and how many talented software engineers are willing to work for them.
by mkl95 on 7/9/21, 7:03 PM
by geekraver on 7/10/21, 2:32 PM
by motohagiography on 7/9/21, 8:25 PM
Napkin math, if your salary is $100k/year - you are necessarily delivering at least $200k in revenue/value, so if you have a rough 6-month stretch, as an asset you are under water. At that point you are a liability and unless someone else can deliver on the other part of that expected $200k value, the opportunity cost is harming the company.
The point of a PIP is to create a paper trail to protect the company from incurring further costs and liability risk, so as a purely post-decision defensive strategy, it makes sense to not disclose it. The laws make it such that everyone has to sustain the fiction that a PIP is in earnest, which creates that creepy gaslighting feeling. The supreme irony is keeping it secret could mean a more personally honest and less psychologically harmful relationship for all involved.
Reality is, performance in most organizations is secondary to relationships in them (and perhaps credentials) because the reason a (profitable/long-lived) company makes money as a business is because it can operate at scale with interchangeable parts that get along, which means the marginal value of a high or low performer is not as significant to its bottom line as downside risks from a lack of cohesion, so the main thing you need to care about in an organization is your key relationships.
If your relationship with co-workers or managers is getting dicey, all you can do is "read the room," keep your CV updated, and your recruiter contacts warm, because unless you deliver some large multiple on performance (product breakthrough they need you to execute, or land a large client, etc), opinion-wise you're done there and it's time to move on.
by posharma on 7/9/21, 6:57 PM
by phkahler on 7/9/21, 9:01 PM
Sounds like therapy. Doesn't really work most of the time. You can't invoke your higher level brain functions without knowing the game being played.
by wellthisisgreat on 7/9/21, 7:34 PM
Or is it slower promotion less bonuses that are somehow not obvious?
by nine_zeros on 7/9/21, 6:20 PM
by busymom0 on 7/10/21, 11:09 AM
Rules for corporations:
Actions > Words
Rules for politicians:
Policies > Rhetoric
by varispeed on 7/9/21, 6:46 PM
Zero respect to the craft. Plus the company is avoiding taxes, so everyone gets paid less thanks to that.
by dbg31415 on 7/9/21, 6:46 PM
But that said, I think Amazon had a very long interview process. Too long. (But I hear it's gotten better.) And so to grow fast, they need an easy way to exit people... that's not a bad thing.
Interviews are never a great way to hire people. Working with them tells you a lot more about personality and work ethic and commitment.
From what I've seen, I don't disagree with any of the employees that had been on Focus. Like generally speaking, we showed the people the door who needed to be shown the door.
For the good of the team, some people just don't fit, or they distract... a lot of it was personality, but a lot of it was really they were lacking the Ownership quality we needed.
If you have someone waiting for 12-levels of approval, they just slow down the others. I don't know quite how to say it, but it was a common thing you'd get someone from a big company... and they had various processes in mind when doing anything. We need that "Bias for Action" instead of anyone just looking to do things the way they did them at past jobs.
Or we had a guy who thought, "We're Amazon, we print money... let's just solve all our problems by throwing money at them." Oof. Amazon is, silly as it sounds, a startup at scale. And their Leadership Principles really speak to this.
Some people just don't get it.
https://www.aboutamazon.com/about-us/leadership-principles
Anyway, my 2 cents, as a former Amazon employee... It's good for any company -- especially one that wants to grow fast -- to exit about 5-10% of their workforce every year. Find the ones that aren't doing what's needed... and encourage them to go work somewhere else where they can add value. I never saw anyone bullied, I never saw anyone put on "Focus" who shouldn't have been there.
Playing devil's advocate... given so few people get off "Focus" plans, what's the point of letting people know they are on it? Kind of just seems like a waste of everyone's time. Some conversations just burn hours, no?
by master_yoda_1 on 7/9/21, 6:30 PM
by imwillofficial on 7/9/21, 6:42 PM
Other people clearly are having different experiences.
by trhway on 7/9/21, 6:04 PM
Edit: it is max cap in hiring requirements. The requirements are directly from AMZN recruiter (AMZN email address, etc). The max is bullet pointed together with the min. The max is also additionally clearly stressed in the description to make sure that there is no misunderstanding (i'd definitely would have hard time believing my eyes if seeing it only once in the bullet points)
by nashashmi on 7/9/21, 5:43 PM
Amazon is doing it exactly right. However there needs to be transparency at the minimum expected performance. For all employees. And when employees know they don’t meet that expectation, they do whatever they need to do including use corporate resources to get there.
But this article is a hit piece