It is obviously far too early to tell what sort of damage has been done to Jeff Bezos and Amazon by the sensational exposé about its punishing corporate culture that was published in the New York Times two weeks ago, but the fallout has been so far-reaching that we must assume Amazon's course has been altered to some degree.
The 6,000-word article by Jodi Kantor painted a picture of a ruthless corporate environment at the firm's Seattle headquarters that, in the name of data-driven efficiency, pushed staff beyond their limits, treated workers callously after illness and bereavement, and encouraged internal competition and conflict, all in the name of something called "purposeful Darwinism", according to one former Amazon human-resources executive. The "weakest" are forced out every year, and it seems suffering from cancer, having a stillborn child or wanting to spend any time with family is enough to be labelled among the weakest and given a "performance improvement plan", often a prelude to being fired. Since the article, numerous other former Amazon staffers have finally found the courage to write about the appalling treatment they endured.
Now I know what you’re probably thinking: that’s a remarkably crude interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution. But aside from the obvious disgust at applying such principles on a workforce, it’s worth unpacking how this will affect the perception of the company.
Amazon has always been slightly apart from the rest of the technology world: a tech company, sure, but one that for much of its existence was primarily considered a modern bookseller.
Behemoths such as Microsoft, Apple and Google have always been about providing software and hardware to consumers, whereas Amazon’s technology was in the service of the comparatively quaint goal of providing books and other real-world goods to consumers. It has only gradually put that impressive technological expertise front and centre, through the Kindle, Amazon Web Services and experiments such as the Fire Phone and the Echo . . . whatever it is the Echo is supposed to be. It’s certainly worth asking how a company that supposedly demands the highest standards from employees and encourages brutal honesty among colleagues managed to develop and ship something as atrocious as the Fire Phone: did Bezos have to endure a dreaded “performance improvement plan” after that fiasco?
As such, Amazon has a rather singular relationship with its customers: no matter how much stuff people buy on Amazon, few have the same sort of relationship with it as they have with their Apple product or with Google’s suite of products, despite the Kindle’s success.
But Amazon’s relationship with its customers is probably secondary to its relationship with its investors, given the company rarely makes much profit despite huge turnover.
One of the most perceptive takes on the expose was by economics writer Matt Yglesias at Vox.com. "For a company with Amazon's quarterly earnings reports to develop a reputation as a really sweet, caring workplace full of tons of supportive people who recognise the importance of living a full, rich, and balanced life could be absolutely deadly to Bezos's sales pitch to investors," Yglesias wrote. "Wall Street will tolerate 'less profit now in pursuit of more profit later'. Wall Street will absolutely not tolerate 'less profit now in pursuit of being a nice boss'."
In this sense, Amazon’s hard-driving culture is somewhat analogous to Ryanair’s public image, but whereas Ryanair has in the past sold its notorious parsimoniousness as beneficial to customers, Amazon is selling its notoriously demanding corporate culture as beneficial to investors. Eventually, of course, Michael O’Leary had to change course slightly and tailor a less pugnacious public image for his airline.
Another telling issue that has gone unexplored is the utterly unironic use of the word “Amazonians” by Bezos and in the article to describe Amazon staff. Could anything be more cult-like, this not-so-subtle indoctrination into a tribe? It’s highly likely this exposé will dramatically undermine any prestige associated with becoming an Amazonian.
But the use of such a label for the staff is symptomatic of a larger issue that is becoming increasingly prevalent, and not just in the US corporate environment: the tendency to place work and career not just at the centre of one’s identity, but in place of identity. It is clear from Kantor’s anecdotes that the internalisation of company goals led to most staff working at night, weekends and on holidays. Such “volunteering” means Amazon is effectively being subsidised by its own staff.
Of course, there is a lot to be said for putting pressure on people to help them reach their full potential: an incalculable amount of human capital is wasted due to people working for employers that don’t challenge them enough. But it’s an exceedingly difficult challenge to get the balance right, and it’s clear that Amazon has calculated that pushing people too far fits their goals.
The New York Times article and the reaction to it, however, has probably changed the equation for Bezos. There is every chance his legacy will be determined by his ability to adapt. But if this scandal forces Bezos to dramatically reshape Amazon's corporate culture, will Wall Street's patience dry up?
