Comments on: Quit & Stayed, or Quit & Paid?

By: Fred Alaggia

Fred Alaggia — Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:33:46 +0000

Amazon’s approach may seem workable in the short run but I wonder at the type of message it sends to the workforce. For example, does it appear to support the concept that employees are not of fundamental importance to the organization? Does the need to offer departure incentives, particularly if the goal is to attract “fresh blood” reflect a poor approach by Amazon’s leaders to performance management and enhancement? I am curious if this approach also has a negative impact on organizational knowledge. We know from experience that companies who have experienced reductions are frequently left with employees with survivor’s syndrome who are unmotivated or fade into the background to avoid attention. I believe that dealing with and supporting people who have lost motivation or the desire to succeed will reap greater rewards than chasing employees away and replacing them with new people who will, in turn, require an investment of time and money. Would it not send a better message, one of opportunity and growth to try and further develop existing employees. If properly done, performance managing underachievers will either result in improved performance or, a ultimately having them exit the organization. Either way, remaining employees will be encouraged to grow with an expectation that their performance is key to their future and that of their employer.

By: Talitha Muller

Talitha Muller — Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:49:44 +0000

I agree with Jeff Bezos that it isn’t good in the long run for either the employee or the company to have employees stay where they don’t want to be.
The only thing I miss in the initiative from Amazon is a follow-up approach, i.e. investigating why the employees are unhappy.
It’s one thing to get rid of a batch of bad apples, but it’s an entirely different thing if there are things (perhaps unknowingly and unintentionally) done by the company itself which causes good apples to go bad.
Was the wrong people recruited for the positions? If so, what went wrong? Are the jobs correctly designed and profiled to attract the relevant people? What is the impact of the leadership on the culture and climate of the company? What are the employees’ motivators? Paying unhappy employees to quit may solve an immediate negative vibe, but one must be careful not to continue cutting off the seemingly “bad apples” without ever paying attention to the environment in which the apple tree is planted.

By: Mark Charest

Mark Charest — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:28:04 +0000

If they are not performing why pay them to leave? I think the case of Amazon is that the majority of the work force are warehouse packaging workers. Basically its indoor farming. How long will people physically and mentally love doing that?