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

Why It's So Difficult to Climb Amazon's Corporate Ladder

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: Why It's So Difficult to Climb Amazon's Corporate Ladder

#31

Post by don_draper »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #8
cylinder wrote: post #4

You should almost always avoid working for low-margin businesses. Sure, if they are new and growing, there's an exception, but if their whole growth plan is premised around being low-margin, it's not going to be a great place to work and advance your career. Expenses such as compensation are always on management's radar.

It's pretty well known around Seattle that Amazon pays their employees very well, and has a tendency of giving ridiculous signing bonuses.

Can you give some specific numbers? What does very well mean?

Here are salaries at glassdoor. Nothing amazing here: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Amazon-com-Software-Engineer...

Re: Why It's So Difficult to Climb Amazon's Corporate Ladder

#33

Post by Terretta »

AsymetricCom wrote: post #28

This article is poorly sourced and fails to establish any evidence for it's main point, that it's "difficult to climb Amazon's corporate ladder," which is probably true considering it's a Fortune 100. Instead, the article paints a picture that Amazon as a place ruled by fiefdoms and popularity contests, but again without any actual evidence, no you have to buy the book for that. I have a feeling that if I read the bo…

> This article is poorly sourced...

On the contrary, it's first party interviews:

"In dozens of interviews ranging over two years for my book, The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon, employees often sounded... But in my interviews with rank and file employees... No one I talked to..."

Just because Wikipedia has a "no original research" policy doesn't make first party research "poorly sourced".

Re: Why It's So Difficult to Climb Amazon's Corporate Ladder

#34

Post by WalterSear »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #8
cylinder wrote: post #4

You should almost always avoid working for low-margin businesses. Sure, if they are new and growing, there's an exception, but if their whole growth plan is premised around being low-margin, it's not going to be a great place to work and advance your career. Expenses such as compensation are always on management's radar.

It's pretty well known around Seattle that Amazon pays their employees very well, and has a tendency of giving ridiculous signing bonuses.

In silicon valley, they just pay a silicon valley wage, which belies the fact that they are in the south bay. Consequently, managers here have constant trouble convincing San Franciscan talent to work there - they just aren't very competitive. I have not seen anything spectacular in terms of a signing bonus, either.

Furthermore, they don't increase your salary over time, so after a while, that OK starting salary drops below the average.

Re: Why It's So Difficult to Climb Amazon's Corporate Ladder

#35

Post by vladimirralev »

ajiang wrote: post #25
vladimirralev wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much more simple than that. Just take a cut from the profits your project generates or supervises. If the project doesn't generate or supervise anything just get a cut from the overall budget which is allocated based on how valuable the project is to the company.

Favors near term profits far more than long term growth, which you could argue is not good for the longevity of the company. Plus, there would be competition over the seemingly most profitable projects. And there are projects that don't generate any profit, but has benefits that are very difficult to quantify.

But if that's true then it applies to shareholders and execs as well. Should we change their compensation plans? Yes there will be competition over the profitable projects and that's how it should be. Projects without profit don't exist. If the project doesn't have profit then the company wouldn't allocate budget. If they allocate budget then the project is profitable. It is up to the project leaders to have the fight and justify budgets if it's not that obvious.

Re: Why It's So Difficult to Climb Amazon's Corporate Ladder

#36

Post by wheaties »

Skip 9 but you have 11? Obligatory "this ladder goes to 11." Really, what's the point of removing a wrung on the ladder if you're only going to put it back at a different/higher place. You could have steps 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and then say you've removed 5 different wrungs but have you really?

Re: Why It's So Difficult to Climb Amazon's Corporate Ladder

#37

Post by marincounty »

Maybe it should be difficult? There's usually nothing more useless than someone who wants to beome a Manager. What even surprises me more is the amount of people out there who really don't care about the money; they want authority. They want a Title in life. They need a title in life?

I have noticed the one factor that can produce a good Manager. That one factor is birth order, and it's the first born. If you're an only child, sorry you are one of the worst. But the first born has been conditioned into not abusing power, and just getting the job done.

Re: Why It's So Difficult to Climb Amazon's Corporate Ladder

#38

Post by vkou »

vladimirralev wrote: post #22
pothibo wrote: post #16

Maybe the problem is promotion altogether? Work your ass off for 1 year and then, you may or may not win the promotion lottery. I guess a more flexible style of salary increase could be created? Work on a project for 3 months. If it attain its goal, everyone on the team receives 0.20% increase. This way you want to make sure your team will succeed. I'm just thinking outloud here. It could be a rubbish idea.

Much more simple than that. Just take a cut from the profits your project generates or supervises. If the project doesn't generate or supervise anything just get a cut from the overall budget which is allocated based on how valuable the project is to the company.

How much profit does QA generate? What about internal build/test tools?

Re: Why It's So Difficult to Climb Amazon's Corporate Ladder

#39

Post by icodestuff »

sokoloff wrote: post #15
mrbgty wrote: post #12

Sounds to me like no matter what system is used, the problem is that there's a limited number of promotions/raises to give out. If your employees really are adding value to the company, then why should the promotions/raises be limited?

Because promotions are generally to a new role, and have been perverted at some places to simply be a new title. Want to get promoted from a Developer to a Developer-2? Those are unlimited. Want to get promoted from a developer-15 to Amazon's CTO? Those are limited.

The Developer to Developer-2 (in Amazon parlance, SDE-I to SDE-II) is VERY limited at Amazon as well. OLR doesn't just hold back managers, it holds back everyone, and it badly hurts their competitiveness in the labor market. After 18 months as an SDE-I there, I received a 4% raise, which was huge, for Amazon (though cost of living in my area went up substantially more during that time). But there was never a chance I was going to be promoted at that time, even though I had been very close to being hired as a II, and if I'd been interviewing then instead of being reviewed, I would have had the II title and compensation. So I left a couple months later (mostly for other reasons, but I won't pretend this wasn't a factor), and got that at my new job. Their loss.

Re: Why It's So Difficult to Climb Amazon's Corporate Ladder

#40

Post by bane »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #8
cylinder wrote: post #4

You should almost always avoid working for low-margin businesses. Sure, if they are new and growing, there's an exception, but if their whole growth plan is premised around being low-margin, it's not going to be a great place to work and advance your career. Expenses such as compensation are always on management's radar.

It's pretty well known around Seattle that Amazon pays their employees very well, and has a tendency of giving ridiculous signing bonuses.

I actually didn't get a job at Amazon because my pretty normal base salary requirements were higher than most of the execs in the company.

The deer in headlights wide-eyed look on my recruiter's face (after I had finished all the interviews) when I told him what I currently made in a smaller metro and what I was looking for is something that will be seared into my memory forever.

I can't remember if the word "salary cap" was used or not, but it was definitely implied.

I offered to accept a lower base with alternative compensation options (even vacation days), but it was already too rich for their blood.

I think they gave it some serious thought, but I got a call a week later that they simply couldn't do it.

Post reply on HN