Amazon CEO warns employees: it's "not going to work out for you" if you don't want to...

[midian182]

A hot potato: While many companies have been calling their employees back into the office recently, none has faced as much pushback from workers as Amazon. Now, CEO Andy Jassy has issued a stark warning to those who don't want to return: "It's probably not going to work out for you."

Insider reports that Jassy made his feelings on Amazon's return-to-office mandate clear during an internal meeting this month.

"It's past the time to disagree and commit," the CEO said. "And if you can't disagree and commit, I also understand that, but it's probably not going to work out for you at Amazon because we are going back to the office at least three days a week, and it's not right for all of our teammates to be in three days a week and for people to refuse to do so."

Jassy claimed earlier this year that Amazon made several observations during the pandemic when teams moved to home or hybrid work models. The company found that it is easier to learn, model, practice, and strengthen its culture when employees are in the office together. Amazon also says traditional working practices make collaborating and inventing easier, and learning from colleagues is better done in person.

Andy "get back in the office" Jassy

"There is something about being face-to-face with somebody, looking them in the eye, and seeing they're fully immersed in whatever you're discussing that bonds people together," Jassy wrote at the time. Based on the findings, Amazon said staff must come into the office at least three days per week.

The announcement resulted in an employee petition, which was resoundingly rejected, and it was one of the reasons behind a walkout later in the year. Adding fuel to the fire is a new Amazon policy introduced in July that requires some corporate workers to relocate to other cities.

Jassy said his decision to demand workers return to the office was a judgment call. Could the Amazon boss be one of the 8 out of 10 executives who made return-to-office plans without proper access to workplace data?

The consequences for those employees who fail to adhere to Amazon's in-office mandate are severe. Unless someone has obtained a rare exception, they will be forced into a "voluntary resignation."

Jassy added that he spoke to 60 to 80 CEOs at other companies, virtually all of whom preferred bringing employees back into the office. One of them might have been Eric Yuan, CEO of Zoom, who recently called employees back because he believes that working via video calls stifles innovation and doesn't allow people to build as much trust. A surprising statement from the Zoom boss.

There have been plenty of studies showing the benefits of working from home, including improved mental health, a better work/life balance, and no time lost while commuting. However, a recent study claimed productivity declines by 18% among home workers.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/99950-andy-jassy-warns-amazon-workers-who-dont-want.html

 

[m4a4]

The consequences for those employees who fail to adhere to Amazon's in-office mandate are severe. Unless someone has obtained a rare exception, they will be forced into a "voluntary resignation."

That sounds illegal. Grow a pair and fire them properly.

 

[Lowhangingfruit]

I'm with Jassy on this one. 2 or 3 days a week in-office is the best of both worlds and I think a fair compromise for both sides of the argument.

I'm a team lead and regularly host zoom meetings. My company allows fully remote, and my team works mostly remote, even though the majority of people are based in the HQ area.

The level of engagement in our planning meetings is nearly 0. Out of 12 people, 10 have their cameras off and don't say a single word through the whole meeting. If you call on them they need a minute to catch up on what we were talking about. The general tone couldn't be more disinterested and bored.

Our company does interesting work, and we follow pretty much every guide out there on how to keep morale and engagement high, but at the end of the day, people are people and they will only do the minimum required. People interact more when in-person. It's as simple as that.

 

[dangh]

That's BS. Old date manager who still can't get over micromanagement. Somehow we managed to use technology to talk to our close ones, handle our taxes, shopping, education, everything but office? you have to be there or else!
We have constantly evolving tools to exchange ideas and train new hires. There are good reasons to see people in office, but the thing above are not.
@Lowhangingfruit - it is easy to put a policy to keep camera on on that meetings. It is good idea to ask people directly why they dont speak. Maybe there is too many unnecesarry meetings because someone still trying to micromanage and that's annoying and meetings are not productive? maybe topics are not related to area of expertise of those people? My team and I work remotely as well, and you have different level of engagements depending on topic and area of expertise, and that is fine. I'm not going to waste my time on chatting about stuff other team needs to do - I have my projects to be pushed forward and thats it. I love constructive discussion which results in decision affecting my part - and I see no reason to sit in a call with 20 people, where 3 are talking about stuff only they are involved in.
If people do not want to incorporate modern management approach and want to emulate approach from '70s, then there _will_ be problems. But this is not about working remotely, it is about managers who are mentally stuck in the last century.

 

[Dimitriid]

The answer seems to be Amazon Unionizing: maybe not just for the warehouse and logistic people, sounds like corporate and AWS should organize with the logistics side and push together to unionize and stop this 'It's gonna end up bad for you, I'm making you an offer you can't refuse' type of intimidation tactics so openly.

 

[PEnnn]

Out of 12 people, 10 have their cameras off and don't say a single word through the whole meeting. If you call on them they need a minute to catch up on what we were talking about. The general tone couldn't be more disinterested and bored.

You know that same applies for in-office meetings, right?? If you don't know, then you're not paying attention!

Many meetings are either useless (mainly just to show that the managers are doing something...) or fail to engage people or keep them from falling asleep with bloated presentations.

Nevertheless, I agree that most employees shouldn't be 100% remote from a company, unless it is truly essential / for special circumstances.

 

[Lowhangingfruit]

If people do not want to incorporate modern management approach and want to emulate approach from '70s, then there _will_ be problems. But this is not about working remotely, it is about managers who are mentally stuck in the last century.

Sounds like what you have is working out great for you personally. That's a perspective. I'm sure some of my team members feel the same, but I'm also concerned about the team dynamic as a whole. Sometimes what works great for one individual doesn't work for the group.

As for my company, I can assure you we follow the latest and trendiest management practices. You suggest requiring cameras be on during meetings, but that has been even more controversial than bringing people back to the office.

Most people on my team are only on 1 or 2 meetings a week that are directly related to the work they are doing. We keep irrelevant meetings to a minimum. Could they also be zoned out during an in-office meeting? Yes definitely, but my experience from the Before Times says that they are just a little bit less zoned out.

There are people who are doing great work and thriving on a fully remote setup. I have a couple on my team and they are fantastic. But not everyone is, and unfortunately it's not easy to hire only rockstars.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

That's BS. Old date manager who still can't get over micromanagement. Somehow we managed to use technology to talk to our close ones, handle our taxes, shopping, education, everything but office? you have to be there or else!
We have constantly evolving tools to exchange ideas and train new hires. There are good reasons to see people in office, but the thing above are not.
@Lowhangingfruit - it is easy to put a policy to keep camera on on that meetings. It is good idea to ask people directly why they dont speak. Maybe there is too many unnecesarry meetings because someone still trying to micromanage and that's annoying and meetings are not productive? maybe topics are not related to area of expertise of those people? My team and I work remotely as well, and you have different level of engagements depending on topic and area of expertise, and that is fine. I'm not going to waste my time on chatting about stuff other team needs to do - I have my projects to be pushed forward and thats it. I love constructive discussion which results in decision affecting my part - and I see no reason to sit in a call with 20 people, where 3 are talking about stuff only they are involved in.
If people do not want to incorporate modern management approach and want to emulate approach from '70s, then there _will_ be problems. But this is not about working remotely, it is about managers who are mentally stuck in the last century.

You have some weird ideas about what micromanagement means. A policy for turning on cameras during all meetings? That sounds more like micromanagement to me that what you suggested lol. To use your own rationale: "It is a good idea to ask people directly why there is a need to have all cameras on. Maybe someone wants to watch employees because someone is still trying to micromanage and that's annoying and not productive?" To be clear I'm fine with an all-cameras-on requirement, but I'm pointing out an obvious flaw in your logic.

Realistically, using virtual meetings creates more meetings as opposed to in-person meetings. Zoom meetings can easily be scheduled to happen weekly and people simply click a link, but people only want to go to physical meetings if they have to. Everyone involved ends up joining virtual meetings and many don't pay attention because they're there for 1 specific reason. And if they're weekly meetings, it's usually worse because it could be only once in a while they have an update to give and they end up never paying attention. Usually, the too many meetings problem is a result of a lack of management, not micromanagement.

Ironically as a programmer, I find working in the office to be a better environment to stay focused in. If you're getting distracted/bothered by someone, at least it's probably work related. At home, that is not the case. Plus as said in the article, it's much easier to disconnect completely if you're fully remote. I'd say some amount of in-person engagement is necessary for good working environment (even if it's a 1 day in the office kind of thing). Otherwise we all just end up being just like an online community of anonymous people you talk with on a regular basis, and drama is easily developed. Some all remote companies can operate like that, but most cannot.

 

[Puiu]

That are many jobs that just don't well over zoom. This is the unfortunate truth. it's infuriating to have to work with a graphic designer who isn't in office.

 

[wiyosaya]

Sounds like what you have is working out great for you personally. That's a perspective. I'm sure some of my team members feel the same, but I'm also concerned about the team dynamic as a whole. Sometimes what works great for one individual doesn't work for the group.

Then maybe that individual does not need to be involved in the meeting?

As for my company, I can assure you we follow the latest and trendiest management practices.

Maybe that's the problem. Management should not be a trend. Trends do not work for everyone, and thinking they do is questionable at best, IMO.

Most people on my team are only on 1 or 2 meetings a week that are directly related to the work they are doing. We keep irrelevant meetings to a minimum. Could they also be zoned out during an in-office meeting? Yes definitely, but my experience from the Before Times says that they are just a little bit less zoned out.

There are people who are doing great work and thriving on a fully remote setup. I have a couple on my team and they are fantastic. But not everyone is, and unfortunately it's not easy to hire only rockstars.

Then perhaps you should communicate with the "non-rockstars" and ask them for their honest responses about why they are not engaged and see if there is something that can be learned from the conversation. Maybe you'll get BS back, maybe not. If you get BS back, then maybe that individual is not a good fit. Then again, maybe you'll get constructive criticism. IMO, expecting everyone to be a rockstar is unreasonable.

 

[wiyosaya]

If it isn't going to work out well for the employee, it isn't going to work out well for Amazon either, IMO.

 

[maxxcool7421]

I'm with Jassy on this one. 2 or 3 days a week in-office is the best of both worlds and I think a fair compromise for both sides of the argument.

I'm a team lead and regularly host zoom meetings. My company allows fully remote, and my team works mostly remote, even though the majority of people are based in the HQ area.

The level of engagement in our planning meetings is nearly 0. Out of 12 people, 10 have their cameras off and don't say a single word through the whole meeting. If you call on them they need a minute to catch up on what we were talking about. The general tone couldn't be more disinterested and bored.

Our company does interesting work, and we follow pretty much every guide out there on how to keep morale and engagement high, but at the end of the day, people are people and they will only do the minimum required. People interact more when in-person. It's as simple as that.

When I went to physical meetings I never spoke unless it was to prevent the dumbest of mistakes by someone else .. even if I had an idea I rarely shared it as currently and as it was in the past, no good deed goes unpunished. Share an Idea, get all the blame .. #### management.

No Im not young.. just cyinical AF after 23 years in IT

 

[FaTaL]

Good. This woke idea of people thinking they can work from home and get paid to do nothing is pathetic. Its eating away at americas work ethic.

Yes, some people can handle work from home...but the majority tie a string to their mouse and fan in hopes their employers IT won't notice...

..|...

 

[wizardB]

That's BS. Old date manager who still can't get over micromanagement. Somehow we managed to use technology to talk to our close ones, handle our taxes, shopping, education, everything but office? you have to be there or else!
We have constantly evolving tools to exchange ideas and train new hires. There are good reasons to see people in office, but the thing above are not.
@Lowhangingfruit - it is easy to put a policy to keep camera on on that meetings. It is good idea to ask people directly why they dont speak. Maybe there is too many unnecesarry meetings because someone still trying to micromanage and that's annoying and meetings are not productive? maybe topics are not related to area of expertise of those people? My team and I work remotely as well, and you have different level of engagements depending on topic and area of expertise, and that is fine. I'm not going to waste my time on chatting about stuff other team needs to do - I have my projects to be pushed forward and thats it. I love constructive discussion which results in decision affecting my part - and I see no reason to sit in a call with 20 people, where 3 are talking about stuff only they are involved in.
If people do not want to incorporate modern management approach and want to emulate approach from '70s, then there _will_ be problems. But this is not about working remotely, it is about managers who are mentally stuck in the last century.

Then go work elsewhere, their company their rules you don't like it go work somewhere else!

 

[hover389]

I wholeheartedly agree that employees should mostly work in office

 

[bandit8623]

No data needed. If your boss says go to work you do it. Or you can find a different job.

 

[NicktheWVAHick]

It would be nice to disagree with your boss, do what you want, and keep your job. That’s not how it works though, snowflake.

 

[Uncle Al]

Judging by many of the recent developments within the company, those employee's would be wise to start looking elsewhere. The company is making most of the same key mistakes that other catalog companies made before their demise, these guys are just making them faster ......

 

[CrisisDog]

Our company is engaging in the scenario that if you want to work from home, then you have no choice but to have “productivity tracking” software loaded onto your corporate device for “big brother” to track your daily progress. As much as I don’t like that, we’re at least giving the option to do one or the other.

 

[p51d007]

Employer says you must be in the office.
Employee says I can work from home.
Employer says YOU'RE FIRED!
End of discussion.
YOU work for the employer, not the other way around.
Don't like it, QUIT!

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

Things have to work for both sides and compromise is needed. Spending a few days per week in the office is not too bad, better than 5 days. But some employees will still say no and these are the ones that should leave because they have no intention to take their job seriously. With inflation and high costs I wonder how many will quit and how many will be fearful of being fired? Sometimes the grass is never greener on the other side.

 

[Lounds]

Too many meetings are counter productive. My team does them fortnightly now.

 

[Shaitan]

It's baffling how the terms have reversed and there years ago these companies were ready to quit the physical work presence demand entirely.
Now, the same people which needed us to work from home suddenly changed their mind concerning the whole polluting less and taking care of our planet by not going to office and need us there, planet be damned.

 

[PaladinNH]

Once again, the answer is somewhere in the middle. CEO has a right to have their employees in the office if they need them in the office to complete their job effectively. Jassy - fairly, though admittedly a stark shift, believes three days a good compromise. Employees, however, have likely moved their homes and their lives away from the urban office, and if they were told that full work from home was now company policy, be fairly granted ample time and maybe money (I'm assuming everyone's seen the housing market lately, hmmm...correlation?) to relocate back to the city/commuting distance.

Pie in the sky, maybe, this is the corporate world after all, and workers are replaceable.

 

[Rocky4040]

If it isn't going to work out well for the employee, it isn't going to work out well for Amazon either, IMO.

Thing is for every person that loses their jobs because they refuse to work with the company that is paying them to do a job there are probably 1000 or more people that will be more than willing to take that job and support themselves and their families. These people have to remember something when they refuse to come into work and want to stay at home. They are not the boss they are just one of many employees that work at a company & they also have to remember they do not set the rules as they do not own squat, they work for someone else.

I am so tired of hearing oh we want to stay at home oh we don't have to come into work it is our right to stay at home. It's a pile of crap either you listen to your bosses and do the job they want you to do, and you were hired to do or pound sand and go elsewhere. A sI said there are many people out of work and most of those would be willing to fill the positions left behind by the slackers.