Amazon’s Performance Management System: An Ex-Manager’s Perspective
As an Amazon manager, I had the unique opportunity to lead a team of program managers and use my skills and knowledge to solve customer problems. I loved my team and the energy around the office, but politics eventually led to my departure.
During the annual-review process, senior leaders were given “unregretted attrition” (URA) numbers – how many employees Amazon wanted to shed in a given year. This often meant that managers were forced to put people into the “least effective” category even if they were performing well.
I had an employee who performed well, but senior leaders seemingly arbitrarily selected them to be in the “least effective” category. I pushed back, providing evidence, accomplishments, and feedback from peers, and was able to convince senior leadership that they weren’t in that category.
Shortly after, my skip-level manager suddenly informed me that I was underperforming and needed coaching. I went through the process, but nothing I did passed muster. I was then asked to accept a severance and my network was turned off.
I believe I was put under a microscope when I fought against an unfair performance-management system. URA felt backward to me; we spent a lot of time on the hiring process, only to have to hit these numbers and put high performers into the “least effective” bucket. It’s unfair and morally wrong, and I don’t believe it serves any business benefit.
Amazon has not commented on the specifics of this essay, but they did state that “most aspects of what this person describes don’t reflect the intent or reality of our evaluation process.”
No matter the reality of the process, it’s important that employees feel heard and respected when they are being reviewed. Companies should focus on creating a culture of trust and open communication, not just hitting numbers.
