Comment by HelloMcFly | Hacker News Reader

Comment by HelloMcFly | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I personally know three people whose stories are much closer to the NYT pieces than your comments, and they've all only left within the past three years, with the most recent exit being about five months ago. I know two others (in Seattle, it's easy to know many people with an Amazon work history) who had a fine experience, one of whom that still works there. I've interviewed for two positions there myself, one that I declined and one that I did not receive an offer for; one was presented as exceptionally competitive, with the HR rep dancing around a few of the NYT-style topics, and one that seemed much more typical and collaborative.

No, I've not worked there, but all of the evidence at my disposal (your comment included), leads me to believe your Amazon experience is highly dependent on where your work group sits in the Amazon network. To shrug off the stories as potential fabrications seems as intellectually dishonest as assuming the stories of extreme treatment are commonplace.

People who are treated well by systems will generally defend those systems, even if it means rationalizing acts of injustice or cruelty happening just next door.

At the very least, how much a person is willing to question the hand that feeds them can reveal the strength of their character to others.

Ouch. I deny that my comment has anything to do with strength of character.

I was treated well, and everyone who I had contact with over my 18 months was similarly treated well (with the exception of forcing client developers to go "on call" for server issues that our team knew NOTHING about...that was cruel and unusual, but even that didn't require 80 hour weeks, just the occasional 2am pager beep).

Our branch of the org chart was happier (according to internal surveys) than Amazon at large, but those internal surveys absolutely didn't paint a picture of tons of unhappy people.

That said, I'm sure there are bad managers at Amazon, just as I had an awesome manager. There are just too many people there for them all to be perfect. But the picture from where I stood was honestly as positive as I described.

So don't throw around aspersions of my character when you don't know my situation, or what I observed.

ASIDE from the fact that I DID leave Amazon and sold all of my stock, so it's more like "the hand that fed me for a while."

Hypothesis: People will lie on internal surveys more often if they feel either nothing will be done or an honest response could be used against them. I wouldn't put too much stock in the results of those surveys.

Anecdotal support for hypothesis: Have been told firsthand by several people that they lie on these types of surveys and don't think results are truly anonymous.

I'd love to see a broad study of this across companies, conducted by a third-party organization with no affiliation to any company studied.

In general, I'd estimate anything below 4 (on a 1-to-5 scale) on those surveys could indicate a problem. What if "3/neutral" really means, "This actually sucks but I'm not willing to tell you that because I don't trust you"?

I doubt there are many internal surveys showing "tons of unhappy people" unless employees a.) have no fear of company reprisal, for whatever reason; or b.) have entirely given up on the company and are in open rebellion.

>how much a person is willing to question the hand that feeds them can reveal the strength of their character to others.

Careful! You are straying into fundamental attribution error territory. Those who bite the hand that feeds them may be in a better position to do so or feel more encouraged by the people they know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

True. I did not mean to say there is a direct correlation (thus the "can reveal") more that criticizing what one perceives as unjust, despite whatever benefits they receive from it, is often noble (strong character). Or at least noble if that person is fully aware of the consequences of speaking out in what they view as the truth.

Note, I believe that Noble does not always equal smart, where smart equals maximizing good, corporeal outcomes for one's self.

The inverse can happen very much though where people that complain the loudest were the exception to an otherwise fine place. What does seem to matter is the percentage and degree of the complaints, and the only way to get the real numbers is with a compulsory, anonymized employee survey.

Agreed. My comment was a response to a supposedly cruel organization vis-a-vis a person's morality, so it did not take into account the inverse as you have supplied.

I believe that once the percentage and degree of complaints meet a certain threshold of systemic cruelty, then my strength of character argument might (might) apply.

It probably also depends on who your manager is - often the biggest determinant of the work environment. A great manager will defend you from corporate b.s., bureaucracy and politics without you even knowing they are doing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com