From the inside, it feels as though the machine is breaking down.
Some easy to point out problems today: hiring freeze for a large swath of the company; the loss of the very-controversial feedback system[0]; changing leadership principles to remove 'vocally self-critical'; anti-customer behavior like removing Chromecasts.
The biggest change that I see is the bureaucracy taking over. A metrics driven company has become a game of who can lie the best with statistics. The leadership principles aren't nearly as important as making your numbers look good.
When problems happen, mechanisms like Cause-Of-Error reports, previously used to solve the root problem, become weapons to use against rivals. Blame is the name of the game, not solving problems. And of course you can't make any change without spending a day writing a request to make the change and getting 5 levels of managers to approve it.
I think it will get worse. I think it's what will cause Amazon to eventually fail. A body growing fat and old, losing it's ability to fight off real cancers.
[0] It was sometimes misused, but the anytime feedback system and end of year feedback helped me grow as a human. I miss it.
Amazon is so decentralized that the anti-patterns you list are probably only under your VP. If anything I think the company is taking action to trim bloated orgs. For example there are internal efforts to prune middle management issues.
(For those that don’t know, Amazon has only one middle manager level (L7); L6 is a frontline manager and L8 is a director. The anti-pattern is when you have L6 reporting to L6, L7 reporting to L7, L8 reporting to L8, L10 reporting to L10...)
This issue is definitely not isolated at Amazon. It isn't even a regional problem. The same issues exist in offices at Lab126, UK, NYC. It's not a retail problem either..
Go on Blind(the 'anonymous' corp talk app) and you will quickly realize it's a common theme across the entire company.
Having been within three separate orgs within AMZN within the last three years, it's hard to believe this is a problem specific to individual orgs. Too much growth too fast.
> Amazon is so decentralized that the anti-patterns you list are probably only under your VP.
One would think so, yet friends in other orgs tell me stories that make me feel the rot has reached the top. Or, those at the top who are't rotted are too far away from anyone doing anything. Jeff Bezos may believe in the Leadership Principles but that doesn't matter if he's 8 levels of management away from the people actually doing anything, and none of those 7 levels in between give a shit about anything other than hitting their numbers.
>changing leadership principles to remove 'vocally self-critical'
This wasn't removed, it just got moved under Earn Trust. It's certainly still something we talk about when interviewing and in debriefs, and when discussing LPs day to day when reaching decisions, at least in my org.
For the rest... I can't say I agree or that I've seen that behavior, based on my experiences over the years I've worked here. I have my gripes and complaints, but nowhere is perfect, and I honestly believe it's the best company I've worked at, which includes some other industry giants.
> I think it will get worse. I think it's what will cause Amazon to eventually fail. A body growing fat and old, losing it's ability to fight off real cancers.
Even if their retail business collapses, they still have AWS. They could stay in business forever just owning a huge swath of the Internet's infrastructure and collecting rent off it.
It sounds like you're not happy in your org. Which is unfortunate, but a lot of what you said doesn't resonate with me.
* The hiring freeze is nothing unusual - ask any yellow (>5 years) or red (>10 years) badge - We grow fast and sometimes too fast and need to slow down. There are times for invention, and there are times for optimization.
* You still can and should provide feedback to managers, and ask for feedback on yourself.
* Vocally self critical got rolled up into Earn Trust. It's still a huge aspect of it, especially during hiring.
* The chromecasts are back on the site! The cold war with Google is thawing
* I won't comment about metrics - if your business team is fudging numbers, that's on you.
* It's CORRECTION-of-error not cause of error. The entire premise is to figure out how to avoid it in the future, not use it as punishment or to point fingers. What orgs do you know that are abusing this system? Name and shame them, if not here then on Blind.
This is going to seem like a stupid nit-pick, but I think it's symptomatic of your experience.
COE actually stands for "Correction of Error", not "Cause". It may seem like a trivial nit, but to me it underscores that the essential purpose of the process is to correct errors, not simply to identify causes and blame them on someone.
That you or your org or your partner teams seem to be using it not as a tool for correcting errors but for blame, is probably just one of many symptoms of rot within your corner of the org.
As a CEO of a startup (10 employees, bootstraped) this post was very inspiring. I am spending my time improving my machine and growing it. But I spend no time at all building the blueprint from which the machine could build itself.
Sometime words, or expressions in this case (« the machine that builds the machine ») can reveal or even create a new reality. That’s what I feel right now.
It’s hard to take anything Ben says seriously anymore. He uses his platform to shill Apple and trash Tesla all the time. This time it only took one sentence before he got cracking on it. Seriously look at his Twitter and its the same monotonous praise for Apple and trashing Tesla Ad nauseam
“but Tesla has yet to build a machine that can manufacture Model 3s efficiently, reliable, quickly and at quality at the scale of the incumbent car industry.
”
People love to call out the Model 3, but Tesla makes almost 2,000 cars a week. They obviously are having a problem with the battery for it. As a general problem, they are past making a few hundred cars a quarter.
>People love to call out the Model 3, but Tesla makes almost 2,000 cars a week. They obviously are having a problem with the battery for it. As a general problem, they are past making a few hundred cars a quarter.
They always overpromised by a few months. It's been a pattern since the start. Apart from the delay they have delivered on their promises after a while.
I mean you can think of their estimations what you want. It could be a bit too much optimism (although can there be too much optimism for a startup?), it could be a marketing tactic. But they've consistently beaten the skeptics until now.
> They always overpromised by a few months. It's been a pattern since the start.
I think this is an endemic problem with Elon Musk himself. He's always very optimistic about all his ventures (Tesla, SpaceX, SpaceX's Texas launch facility, Hyperloop...). He seems to have issues with estimating real-world issues that creep into every project.
However, like you said, he does always seem to get there in the end, one way or another.
It's kind of fun: Tesla pulled in the mass manufacturing date of Model 3 to 6 months earlier, is late, and is ahead of the original schedule. Everyone complains.
I think the statement as quoted still works, right? 2,000 cars a week is not approaching the scale of the incumbent car industry. It's too early to tell how the Model 3's reliability stacks up.
Reference to personal characteristics that go to the probity (honesty), memory or capacity for logical thought of the speaker are NOT an ad hominen fallacy. "He is a pathological liar, convicted of perjury, you can't trust his 'facts.'" is NOT an ad hominem fallacy. "He is a rapist/teenager/Republican, I wouldn't put any faith in his numbers." WOULD BE an ad hominem fallacy.
To quote Wikipedia, which you may not have read before typing, despite your advising others to "look it up":
"However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself." I.E. the personal characteristics cited do impune the argument.
A consistent history of blind rejection or enthusiasm is a characteristic that does impune the veracity of the argument, since the world isn't really like that. (Proof not necessary since relevance is what is in question.) That is, manic-depressive characteristics on the part of the speaker obviously do affect the probability that an statement or argument is true and raising them as relevant is thus not fallacious. False, quite possibly, but not fallacious or irrelevant.
Yours is a now very common misapprehension of "ad hominem", I've contradicted it here before. I am unsure where it comes from, except perhaps an exaggerated modern "amour propre," since this criticism can be used to deflect various forms of personal criticisms even when directly to the point. I may be wrong but I think this error is quite modern, I don't remember encountering it decades ago, ever. But then, this technical phrase may not have been in common parlance at that time.
I would give you this much: a false call of "ad hominem" is technically a red herring (via a false claim), rather than a straw man; since straw men arguments distort, then reject/disprove/falsify others claims; whereas you outright rejected their claim as irrelevant (rather than untrue) with no distortion of the meaning of the other's words (only distortion of the relevance of his words or the meaning of your own words - namely ad hominem) being necessary for that trick.
So, if a dishonest person with dementia says that water is wet, and you wanted to challenge his/her position because it is your personal opinion that water isn't wet, you just ad hominem them, and say that it is not ad hominem?
I will give you this much. Your length response sound like you're a pretty educated person.
C'mon. You're not even trying, now. This is mere caviling. If you believe that attaching a fallacy to an argument proves it false, that's your lone belief, not something anyone else has signed up for.
Not always, not every reference to another human speaker can be simply booted from the discussion, see Wikipedia as stated above. Or take some academic philosophy courses if you're still in doubt.
It does not, on its own, make him wrong in this case.
I don't feel like putting in the effort to figure out if this presentation of "strawman" is meta-ironic in that it is itself a strawman, but I can't tell that it isn't.
Your comment, which I responded to as "ad hominem" (please look it up), literally has zero substance to challenge the author's position. That, is my case, that that you committed an ad hominem fallacy. Now, you said I straw-man'd you. Care to substantiate?
Why should we read what he writes or take him seriously? Is he another kiddie with a blog or someone with intellect and accomplishments which command respect?
This rings very similar to the Startup Way, Eric Ries’s new book about how larger organizations need to functionalize entrepreneurship and the successor to the Lean Startup. I’m reading it right now and having started an internal startup at a public software company years ago, it’s really quite good. My guess is Ben is reading it right now based on some of the verbiage like “atomized teams” that Eric uses repeatedly in the book.
There is nearly a decade of precedent for complaint-free use of the amzn.com domain here on HN[0].
The amzn.com link I provided is as much an Amazon link as your expanded version (both domains are owned by Amazon[1]).
I choose not to use the official, shortest a.co option (growing in popularity here[2][3]) because it obscures a tiny bit more context (the Amazon Standard Identification Number is usually recognizable as such).
In this case Amazon promises the shorter url IS a permalink, it does not make the claim that the longer link will be permanent to the best of my knowledge, although it's a good guess they will also be retained.
"If the machine is designed to do X, it will struggle at Y no matter how clever the people."
Not quite true as stated - unless this means that excellent people doing excellent work on unfavored Y are overwhelmingly likely to be transferred to a team working on X.
Many successful pivots were possible because the team assigned to do Y were unexpected stars and before they could be shifted to more central work, it became clear they had created a different and more viable business than the machine they were supposed to be a minor part of.
Isn't it obvious that once you have a big selling platform, you can make it grow until you hit a competitor that is bigger than you? Which in the case of Amazon is not happening.
Can we please turn "selling" into a utility function, so that the "digital economy" can perhaps turn into something useful instead of a detriment?
> Isn't it obvious that once you have a big selling platform, you can make it grow until you hit a competitor that is bigger than you?
How'd that work out for eBay?
What is it with so many human beings where -- even in a clearly competitive environment -- we assume difficult things are dead simple and easy? History is rife with incumbents that failed on their own or were defeated by upstarts, you have to really go out of your way to pretend those don't exist or convince yourself that they were all full of the unusually stupid, and yet some people make it work.
Agreed. But "unlikely to happen to [specific company]" is a wildly different assertion than "Isn't it obvious that once you have a big selling platform, you can make it grow until you hit a competitor that is bigger than you?"
The implication of the latter statement is that once you're ahead, you're destined to stay ahead unless you hit upon a competitor that's already bigger. Obviously, that hasn't been true in the real world.
Some easy to point out problems today: hiring freeze for a large swath of the company; the loss of the very-controversial feedback system[0]; changing leadership principles to remove 'vocally self-critical'; anti-customer behavior like removing Chromecasts.
The biggest change that I see is the bureaucracy taking over. A metrics driven company has become a game of who can lie the best with statistics. The leadership principles aren't nearly as important as making your numbers look good.
When problems happen, mechanisms like Cause-Of-Error reports, previously used to solve the root problem, become weapons to use against rivals. Blame is the name of the game, not solving problems. And of course you can't make any change without spending a day writing a request to make the change and getting 5 levels of managers to approve it.
I think it will get worse. I think it's what will cause Amazon to eventually fail. A body growing fat and old, losing it's ability to fight off real cancers.
[0] It was sometimes misused, but the anytime feedback system and end of year feedback helped me grow as a human. I miss it.