Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employee #1: Amazon

themacro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 124 posts

Re: Employee #1: Amazon

#81

Post by AstralStorm »

gumby wrote: post #13
AstralStorm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beautiful example of Peter principle and how to promote someone into uselessness and inefficacy.

I wouldn't call that the Peter Principle; he wasn't promoted above his skill set (per se) due to things like time in grade, which is what Laurence Peter wrote about. In the Peter Principle book the person causes damage through having responsibility without the ability to execute in that particular role. As others mentioned it was more a great way to reward someone who now didn't really have a specific spot. This is f…

Great way to reward someone by not using their best skills and making them essentially ineffective? He said he became essentially a reviewer placed too late in the development process to matter.

Peter principle concerns efficacy, not necessarily active damage.

"PR guy" (direct marketing) is actually a role many founders do well.

Re: Employee #1: Amazon

#82

Post by AstralStorm »

__derek__ wrote: post #42
AstralStorm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beautiful example of Peter principle and how to promote someone into uselessness and inefficacy.

In THE EVERYTHING STORE, which I happen to be reading, it's noted that Bezos told Kephan early on that he would have his job as long as he wanted it. This was Bezos's compromise, basically: stick to the letter of his promise while doing what he had to do for the company. As others have noted, it was not an example of the Peter Principle because it moved SK out of the hierarchy.

It is an example because hierarchy is not required and does not necessarily have to be linear.

What you saw is specifically moving a good developer and architect into a managerial (and quite irrelevant) role. It is almost a textbook example.

Re: Employee #1: Amazon

#83

Post by 0xmohit »

exolymph wrote: post #73
0xmohit wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surprisingly, some people couldn't get the answer right even using Google. Never underestimate anybody. I've seen numerous examples wherein folks would copy/paste an obviously inferior answer (or even incorrect) from a Stack Overflow post that contains a much better answer.

You mean never overestimate anybody. Or maybe, "You can never underestimate anybody."

I meant what I read somewhere long time back:

  Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Re: Employee #1: Amazon

#84

Post by paulddraper »

towndrunk wrote: post #24
afarrell wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People, or at least children, have been running around in parks trying to catch invisible animals for decades. As adults, it has definitely been a positive development for my wife and I.

"it has definitely been a positive development for my wife and I." Seriously? Just curious... what age range are you in?

Were you asking because of his interests or because of his grammar?

Re: Employee #1: Amazon

#85

Post by sillysaurus3 »

rpeden wrote: post #80
grahamburger wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, it was very frustrating. They required that we follow the exact same set of interview questions for every candidate, verbatim. We were not allowed to ask technical questions or do any kind of proficiency questioning / testing, etc. When pressed, they said that we could ask follow up questions to their set of questions, and that we should be able to determine technical proficiency by inquiring about past exper…

Not being allowed to ask technical questions sounds like a big problem. Asking everyone exactly the questions at least seems like an attempt to ensure a level playing field for all candidates and eliminate bias that interviewers might not even realize is occurring. Before starting my development career, I studied quite a bit of HR as part of my business degree. There was a fair amount of emphasis on a uniform, struct…

But interviewing isn't about asking someone technical questions. It's about whether the candidate can get work done. I'll never understand the massive debate about the effectiveness of work-sample tests -- no questions, just "Here is some work. Can you do it?"

I've seen how effective it is. And how many people rebel against it. No idea why. Ego, sometimes. It's unfortunate.

Re: Employee #1: Amazon

#86

Post by rpeden »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #85
rpeden wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being allowed to ask technical questions sounds like a big problem. Asking everyone exactly the questions at least seems like an attempt to ensure a level playing field for all candidates and eliminate bias that interviewers might not even realize is occurring. Before starting my development career, I studied quite a bit of HR as part of my business degree. There was a fair amount of emphasis on a uniform, struct…

But interviewing isn't about asking someone technical questions. It's about whether the candidate can get work done. I'll never understand the massive debate about the effectiveness of work-sample tests -- no questions, just "Here is some work. Can you do it?" I've seen how effective it is. And how many people rebel against it. No idea why. Ego, sometimes. It's unfortunate.

I agree that tests like that can be a great way to determine how effective a candidate might be.

I think the same principle applies - if possible, giving everyone the same work sample tests provides a good basis for comparison between candidates.

Re: Employee #1: Amazon

#87

Post by [deleted] »

rpeden wrote: post #86
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But interviewing isn't about asking someone technical questions. It's about whether the candidate can get work done. I'll never understand the massive debate about the effectiveness of work-sample tests -- no questions, just "Here is some work. Can you do it?" I've seen how effective it is. And how many people rebel against it. No idea why. Ego, sometimes. It's unfortunate.

I agree that tests like that can be a great way to determine how effective a candidate might be. I think the same principle applies - if possible, giving everyone the same work sample tests provides a good basis for comparison between candidates.

[deleted]

Re: Employee #1: Amazon

#88

Post by thecus »

abc_lisper wrote: post #12

The most important question left unasked : Did he make enough money to retire after it?

His agreement stipulated that he had ISOs for 709,568 shares at a strike price of $.001471.

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=3847...

"This Amended and Restated Incentive Stock Option Letter Agreement (this "Agreement") amends and supersedes paragraph 2(c) of the Employment Agreement between you and the Company dated October 24, 1994, regarding the grant to you of a stock option (the "Option") for the purchase of 709,568 shares (the "Option Shares") of the Common Stock of Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") at an exercise price of $.001471 per share (reflects stock split effected on November 23, 1996)."

Re: Employee #1: Amazon

#89

Post by hibikir »

gtirloni wrote: post #72
cookiecaper wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I actually wish more liberal use would be made of this strategy. I've worked at a lot of companies where obstructionist employees are kept in their slots due to management's concern over the personal fallout (both for their relationship with the employee and for the employee's relationships with others). It's none of my business whether they stay on payroll or not, and I don't mind at all if they do if tha…

That's an awful way to burn someone. Better to fire this person or really put an effort to find a better position that he/she really wants.

We are talking startups: Your typical early employee that didn't grow past mid level dev is out of position by year four. Even though their options are vested, chances are that can't afford to exercise them, and will be worth zero if they quit. Therefore, firing those kind of people as a matter of course is probably not what they want. You joined early for the great equity (a bad idea in the first place). Imagine how bad it would be if you risked getting fired if you don't grow into a good architect!

Re: Employee #1: Amazon

#90

Post by erubin »

phonon wrote: post #43
giarc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quote from a 2011 Geekwire article. " Jeff was working on it full-time already, and his wife, Mackenzie, was writing checks every once in a while. But that was it. I didn’t get founder’s stock." 0. http://www.geekwire.com/2011/meet-shel-kaphan-amazoncom-empl...

Nope. http://www.secinfo.com/dr6nd.818y.s.htm#1stPage http://www.geekwire.com/2011/meet-shel-kaphan-amazoncom-empl... "So, after five years were up — and my stock was all vested — I probably would have left a little earlier if that had not been the issue. So, did you hang on to all of the shares because Amazon hit a rough patch just after you left? “I don’t know what the effect on morale inside the company was since…

A lot of money to be sure, but he'd have an order of magnitude or two more if he were the last cofounder instead of the first employee.
Post reply on HN