I think he would say that the innovative ideas come from the trusted core in-crowd, while everyone else is interchangeable. Amazon has a tough culture that chews people up and spits them out. I frequently hear from Amazon employees here in Seattle that their average tenure is just one year.
So, the question is: how does one get into the "trusted core in-crowd"? Is this something that one can pre-select in the hiring process? I wouldn't work for Amazon unless I were fast-tracked into that set and I imagine that the odds are very long.
The high turnover is not a bug, it's a feature.
We need a third case between "bug" and "feature" for "that which works as designed, but does a harmful thing". In the short term, the "Real <X>" phenomenon (i.e. "Real Amazoners" get to work on the cool stuff and innovate, and the peasants do the shit work and burn out after a year) motivates people. In the long term, it's bad on both sides of the divide. The losers hate it (that's obvious) and begin to underperform and sabotage the organization, to the point where you get an unreliable "Swiss cheese" organization. However, it also leads the winners toward complacency and entitlement, as well as obsession over relative status, which leaves the company ill-equipped to compete on absolute terms and keep relevant. These degeneracies can be slowed down to the point of happening over 15 years instead of 6 months, but they are inevitable.
So, the question is: how does one get into the "trusted core in-crowd"?
At most companies it's based on playing the political game well and building alliances with the right people. I've never worked at Amazon but I doubt they are different in this regard. It's just how humans work in the general case.
We need a third case between "bug" and "feature" for "that which works as designed, but does a harmful thing".
So, the question is: how does one get into the "trusted core in-crowd"? Is this something that one can pre-select in the hiring process? I wouldn't work for Amazon unless I were fast-tracked into that set and I imagine that the odds are very long.
The high turnover is not a bug, it's a feature.
We need a third case between "bug" and "feature" for "that which works as designed, but does a harmful thing". In the short term, the "Real <X>" phenomenon (i.e. "Real Amazoners" get to work on the cool stuff and innovate, and the peasants do the shit work and burn out after a year) motivates people. In the long term, it's bad on both sides of the divide. The losers hate it (that's obvious) and begin to underperform and sabotage the organization, to the point where you get an unreliable "Swiss cheese" organization. However, it also leads the winners toward complacency and entitlement, as well as obsession over relative status, which leaves the company ill-equipped to compete on absolute terms and keep relevant. These degeneracies can be slowed down to the point of happening over 15 years instead of 6 months, but they are inevitable.