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

Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

techstartups.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 285 posts

Re: Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

#131

Post by bb88 »

ketzo wrote: post #107
steveBK123 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely unique experience for you probably. I think career wise in 20 years I'd break down my experience as - 25% benign, 25% malign, 50% good. This is across 6+ companies, 15-20 managers.

The way people on HN sometimes talk about "management," you'd think the universal experience is 1% good, 9% benign, 90% actively seeking the downfall of civilization Managers seem like a good example of the "toupee problem" -- the ones you notice, and really remember, are the bad ones; the best, you might never see at all.

I like the old wisdom about apples personally: "One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch".

Re: Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

#132

Post by vkou »

nine_zeros wrote: post #124
malfist wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary output of managers is not "making creative decisions" in fact that's probably not anywhere close to the top line.

And because they are only doing administration and reviews, they are even lesser required.

Yes, you can always push that admin and coordination and communication work down to the ICs. I'm sure you'll be thrilled to get that added to your plate.

Re: Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

#133

Post by hnthrow90348765 »

ketzo wrote: post #107
steveBK123 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely unique experience for you probably. I think career wise in 20 years I'd break down my experience as - 25% benign, 25% malign, 50% good. This is across 6+ companies, 15-20 managers.

The way people on HN sometimes talk about "management," you'd think the universal experience is 1% good, 9% benign, 90% actively seeking the downfall of civilization Managers seem like a good example of the "toupee problem" -- the ones you notice, and really remember, are the bad ones; the best, you might never see at all.

The economic cards seemed more stacked against workers, so resentment for managers builds more quickly than the opposite direction. Management who resents their workers can also fire them. Workers who resent their managers must go find another job. And offshoring/nearshoring for workers happens more than managers.

Would be interested in comparing the interview processes for ICs vs. managers at Amazon. Probably no leetcode-equivalent for managers?

Re: Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

#134

Post by vkou »

cscheid wrote: post #41
bb88 wrote: post #24

I'm going to make the observation that politics in a company is caused by management. The more "politics" you have at a company, the more you pay in a "political tax". Effort which should benefit the company is delayed or made harder as employees have to bob and weave to get through the politics. I do believe if you want real culture change in a company, the best way to do it is to show managers the door, because tha…

(Context: I’m an IC and told my Manager multiple times that I’d quit if they ever make me a manager) If you truly believe that, please do yourself a favor and read “The tyranny of structurelessness” to understand what a managerless place becomes. everyone and no one becomes a manager, and there’s no explicit avenue of recourse. There’s a good reason management arises. We can discuss good management vs bad management,…

> There’s a good reason management arises.

Look, you have me for the rest of your post, but let's not imagine that the kind of management we see in an orthodox corporation in the year 2025 is some kind of emergent grassroots property.

It's a tool created by owners to exercise control over the people whose labour they own.

Re: Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

#135

Post by Myrmornis »

basisword wrote: post #97

I don't understand the shit 'managers' get on here. I've been in this industry for 15+ years and with one or two rare exceptions every manager has been great. They respect my time, when I need something they're incredibly helpful, and they care about my career development. IMO the culling over managers over the past few years is really a way to make sure you don't have someone you can discuss career development, prom…

My experience has generally been that a group of intelligent adults are capable of both planning and steering the course of their development efforts as well as carrying out those development efforts. It's not unprecedented, or a particularly radical thesis: in university research labs, as a PhD student, post-doc, or professor, you manage yourself (PhD students meeting with their advisor once every few weeks).

Sure, there are meta-conversations about process and compensation, and there are younger employees who may need more guidance, and there are intersections with product managers etc. But the ratio of managers to ICs is often higher than needed.

Re: Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

#136

Post by lolinder »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #130
lolinder wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the answer you were looking for was "managers", then you have no concept of just how big Amazon is. According to TFA they have about 106000 managers before this layoff. You don't give 106k people any meaningful control over the company's policies and procedures, that has to come from the layers above the managers, probably several layers up.

So, the people that manage the managers?

Try the people that manage the people that manage the people that manage the managers. Maybe.

Definitely not the people being laid off.

Re: Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

#137

Post by bsimpson »

lysace wrote: post #75
bsimpson wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The yellow|white|red jacks on the back of your TV are "RCA jacks." RCA stands for Radio Corporation of America. The same RCA launched NBC, which launched CNBC, which is a dominant source of financial news in the US. You plugged your Nintendo into a TV using jacks designed by the same company that told your parents which stocks to buy and sell. Gets even weirder when you get into acquisitions, where Ben and Jerry's ic…

We mostly didn't have RCA jacks in Europe when I grew up. But nevermind; this is not the same. Amazon largely consists of two internally grown businesses: Retail and AWS. They are wildly different.

One part of the company designed infrastructure, and another part used it. The results feel disparate because they're very separate markets.

Amazon did it on a shorter timeline and shipped the usage before the infrastructure, but it's not as wildly different as you state. The same seed grew branches in different directions, whose tips ended up very far apart from one another.

Re: Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

#138

Post by nomel »

jmull wrote: post #80
nomel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they do, they've culled those that they deemed weren't a good fit, possibly changing the hiring criteria. If the criteria for both is rational, purging can be very good for an org, and the employees. Crap managers make jobs suck for everyone involved. edit: I'll say, I've only ever left a job because of a manager. Shortly before leaving my current job, due to a crap manager, the previous manager was fired. Th…

These guys either hired 14K bad/useless managers, or fired 14K decent, useful managers, or some combination of both. I wouldn't bet they will suddenly become good at hiring managers.

I don't think it's useful to look at absolutes like this.

The question is, how many managers did they hire since the last round of layoffs, and what percent are being layed off now? Or, in other words, what's the bad hire rate? How does that unavoidable number compare to the industry?

14k people is 0.9% of their employees. Let's say they have a 16% manager ratio. That's maybe 5% of their management. What's the management/non-management ratio? Is it meant to balance for the reductions in headcount?

Re: Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

#139

Post by bb88 »

hnthrow90348765 wrote: post #133
ketzo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way people on HN sometimes talk about "management," you'd think the universal experience is 1% good, 9% benign, 90% actively seeking the downfall of civilization Managers seem like a good example of the "toupee problem" -- the ones you notice, and really remember, are the bad ones; the best, you might never see at all.

The economic cards seemed more stacked against workers, so resentment for managers builds more quickly than the opposite direction. Management who resents their workers can also fire them. Workers who resent their managers must go find another job. And offshoring/nearshoring for workers happens more than managers. Would be interested in comparing the interview processes for ICs vs. managers at Amazon. Probably no lee…

A lot of women complained about the "boys only club" in the 70s/80s/90s. While things have gotten better for women, there is still a lot of "club" going on.

Re: Amazon plans to lay off 14,000 managerial positions to save $3.5B yearly

#140

Post by protocolture »

basisword wrote: post #97

I don't understand the shit 'managers' get on here. I've been in this industry for 15+ years and with one or two rare exceptions every manager has been great. They respect my time, when I need something they're incredibly helpful, and they care about my career development. IMO the culling over managers over the past few years is really a way to make sure you don't have someone you can discuss career development, prom…

Look to give you the benefit of the doubt there are some experiences you probably just havent had.
Post reply on HN