Inside Amazon

Thought pieces all over the web in reaction to this article. Many of them mention Ms. Willet.

And, it's pretty clear that none of the authors of the various think pieces reached out to her, since they all repeat the Times' misspelling of her last name:

Sign Up | LinkedIn

 

Real tears, I've heard.

 

From the company that brought you the innovative Kindle Fire.

 

From my friends and acquaintances, an even larger company is eerily similar, Oracle. Always sounded like an awful place where they cannibalize each other in the name of getting the sale (and hence commissions.)

 

Remember when Marissa Mayer had the audacity of making Yahoo! employees work from the office instead of paying them to loaf at home or at their kids' school functions? Must be an awful and horrible place to work.

 

I understand what you're saying, up a point. And such systems of measurement are good and performance-enhancing/enforcing, up to a point.

The problem is not in the letter of these systems/laws, it's in the spirit of them.

An example I can think of that's similar, but simpler, from Walmart: The back-room crew, for example, is subject to a system of measurement that sounds similar to what is used in the warehouse at Amazon, tracking people's performances by numbers, and, probably, ranking them accordingly for each shift. But as in anything, sheer numbers don't always tell the whole story.

In an effort to complete assigned, and tracked and timed, tasks, associates may get items picked for stocking, or binned (put away in the back) as needed and get them recorded in the system. But...they may not label something correctly, or count/record an item quantity accurately, or they may not audit the bin (which is needed for updating storage and accurately recording inventory locations, but is NOT a timed aspect of the operation), or, they may pick something, and stock it, and they may physically throw items in the bins but then not actually record that storage (bin it) in the system, etc., making items un-findable except by lucky eyeballing if/when they're needed.

In other words, people may sacrifice accuracy and true excellence simply in order to meet demands of the metrics/numbers game. So, some people are better speed demons than others. But some are more accurate and more likely, and trusted, to really do/get things right.

Both things are/should be valued. But only one really shows up obviously in the numbers.

 

"In other words, people may sacrifice accuracy and true excellence simply in order to meet demands of the metrics/numbers game."

Sounds familiar.

 

"We did it first!" – Newspapers, hungry for scoops.

 

Sadly.

The key, I think, is finding a good balance and consistency, which I have done, and thankfully, know that I've been valued for it. But if someone is going to be valued for that, the higher managers also need to want/buy in to the value of the overall performance and not get too hung up only on straight numbers.

I've been fortunate that the managers in my store seem to understand this.

I have to say I got a chuckle out of people getting "managed out," not fired. I guess that term isn't part of the company language.

Related to all this, I would have seriously liked to have heard/read more about Amazon's ranking-and-yanking system. What is valued there, and how, exactly, are those things measured? I mean, does your ranking go up based on the number of emails you write/answer? How many demerit points does each mention of your name on the intracompany snitch/complaint line land you?

Is it based on the number of your ideas -- whether they're shot down or raved about? Or are only ideas that generate a certain amount of money pertinent in rankings?

Because otherwise, as I was reading, I thought Amazon employees sounded a lot like freelance reporters/writers in many ways.

 

Guess what? They are not publicly traded.

Working The Good Life

SAS Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The author of all this pampering is Jim Goodnight, a lanky, laconic billionaire, the co-founder and CEO of SAS.

"What's wrong with treating your people good?" asks Goodnight. "All I can say is it's worked for us."

Indeed it has. SAS has never had a losing year and never laid off a single employee. Last year they sold $1 billion worth of their analytical software to America's biggest corporations. This software is sophisticated stuff that helps everyone from Victoria's Secret to the U.S. military work more efficiently, by turning raw data into useful information.

The armies of programmers who churn out the product are paid a competitive wage, but are not offered stock options, because there is no stock. Still, by offering extraordinary perks, SAS keeps turnover low, and a happy, experienced workforce -- 9,000 strong -- keeps customers coming back year after year.

 

USATODAY.com - SAS workers won when greed lost

You could use the SAS story to construct a version of the 1946 movie It's a Wonderful Life. With Goodnight's decision intact, SAS is a manicured, homey place of on-site health care, hefty benefits and piano players in the cafeteria. Take away Goodnight and his decision, and SAS likely would be a public company forced by investors and Wall Street over the past three years to slash costs to prop up the stock price. Its campus would be a much drearier place after waves of layoffs and lost perks.