This could be called a sequel to the author's 2013 release, The Everything Store. The previous book is not required reading and from what I can remember they don't have much overlap. While the first focused on the beginnings of Amazon, this one is primarily about 2010 to 2021.

A few days before reading this book, I read this article about how Amazon should become a member of the United Nations. As a note, the author of the book is also employed by Bloomberg. At the time I read I was confused why this would be put forth and entirely disagreed. Now I believe I understand how this sort of mindset would come about. I still disagree with it wholeheartedly, but with how the various workings were described, these mega corporations can be seen as a sort of government already as is.

The story of Amazon has all the makings of a tv series or movie, similar in ways to Billions or the Steve Jobs movie. Maybe it's just me, but with all drama, wide cast of characters, factions, rivalries, betrayals, twists, intrigue, and much else, I thought at times that I was reading a fictional novel. Bezos repeatedly demands his own "Game of Thrones" for Amazon, though I don't think he has to look any further than his own life for a modern-day comparison.

Various assembled excerpts and responses that aren't contiguous or otherwise in order

While the brutal leadership style and distinct culture was enervating to many employees, it was also proving unmistakably effective.

AWS execs and engineers typically describe this remarkable session with a combination of awe and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Amazon leadership principle that stipulates leaders must be “vocally self-critical.” “That’s when I learned a lesson that regardless of whether you just delivered the biggest revenue day in Amazon’s history, your first sentence is, ‘We fucked up.’”

Now Wulff joined the ranks of a crowded club: she was a disillusioned former Amazon employee.

The reporters, Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld, described an environment of combative meetings, unreasonably high standards, eighty-hour workweeks, and employees who regularly wept at their desks.

They reported that some workers who suffered from critical illnesses, miscarriages, or other personal crises were penalized professionally.

And they described the practice of “stack ranking,” or regularly dismissing the least-productive workers, amounting to “purposeful Darwinism” that created an environment of fear.

“People thought it was a mean-spirited process and to a certain extent it was,” Niekerk said. “But in the big picture, it kept Amazon fresh and innovative.”

“He once told me, ‘If we ever appear in the “100 best places to work in America,” you’ve screwed this place up,’” Niekerk said. (Alas, Amazon would soon become a mainstay of those lists.)

Though it sounded innocuous, the directive, dubbed “span of control,” set off the equivalent of a neutron bomb inside the company. Senior managers with only three, four, or five direct reports had to reach into their organizations and appropriate employees from a subordinate to get to six direct reports, leaving the underling without the necessary number.

The informal, musical chairs–style reorganization allowed Amazon to avoid the internal and external stigma of announcing layoffs.

It was a typical Bezos move—brilliant, and rather cruel.

“A couple of folks used to joke, ‘Dude, we are working in a labor camp.’"

Based on the conditions reported elsewhere about the fulfillment centers, is it really a joke though?
There are so many examples presented such as this where employees are pitted against other employees. The weak and vulnerable are especially targeted and exploited.
It amazes me that despite this and much else that it included be in the 100 best places to work in America. That says a lot, but I can't specifically what about. The state of the American workplace? The metrics used to create the list? How many people who work there feel compelled to say it's great regardless? I don't know, but it seems very dissonant. To be fair, several of these practices were changed, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the differently bad.

“disagree and commit,” after Amazon leadership principle #13, which says employees who disagree with a decision must put aside their doubts and work to support it.

I find this both terrible and understandable. Yes, it's authoritarian and hierarchical, reminiscent of the military or a political party that demands compliance. However, it's also true that there are limited resources and it is a binary decision. In some ways it would be better if there was no choice rather than allowing the illusion of mattering, but illusions are important for their ends.

In reality, the opposite was true. That year, AWS had a 70 percent growth rate and 19.2 percent operating margin, compared to the North American retail group’s 25 percent growth rate and 2.2 percent operating margin.

It's certainly amazing how effective having a stealth monopoly can be to maintaining dominance.

“It’s better to assume trust and find out that you are wrong than to always assume people are trying to screw you over,” was essentially [Bezos's] philosophy, according to a friend.

Toyota’s proven Lean ideology and argued for “treating people fairly,” building “mutual trust between managers and associates,” and empowering leaders to inspire employees rather than act as disciplinarians. Bezos hated it.

I find that first statement to be rather disingenuous, especially in terms of power dynamics and accountability. It's lot easier to not worry about whether you can trust people when they know there will be severe consequences and even if they aren't trustworthy it'd be relatively little loss to you. I don't know how that's reconciled with the second statement.

“I feel like I should have moved much faster and more aggressively. I bought into a narrative that all sellers were good.”

This would really strain belief for me if weren't for that these statements are repeated over and over again. What people are able to convince their selves of is truly astounding.

one of the biggest threats to the company was a disgruntled and entrenched hourly workforce—like the unionized workers that impaired U.S. automakers with strikes and onerous contract negotiations. (Amazon later denied that Bezos said this.) He encouraged Niekerk and Onetto to focus on ensuring that FC workers who weren’t advancing within Amazon stayed for a maximum of three years.

“We respect the right for all employees under federal and state law to organize if that is what they so choose” was the legal boilerplate that Huseman should have recited—but...Instead, he blundered with “No we would not agree to that,” and the battle was lost.

A case where their hubris wasn't so effective. They may not be able to win every battle, but they've certainly won a lot of them.

Clark had proven himself a true Amazonian, putting loyalty to the company above personal friendship while pursuing Bezos’s vision of an independent supply chain.

In other words, Dave Clark had proven himself to be nearly every bit as creative and ruthless as Jeff Bezos himself.

Along the way, the former middle-school band teacher had busted through obstacles of every kind, fractured a major friendship, squeezed additional productivity out of Amazon’s low-wage workers, and levered the significant costs onto society at large. And Amazon’s reputation was only slightly grazed in the process.

Based on this book, despite how loyal and how much they help the corporate cult, it often doesn't end well for them. I cannot relate at all to someone who makes a cause their entire identity, especially if it's for a corporation.

They applied the same precision to his daily movements as they might for a state leader—and made certain his speeches and social media posts were always harmlessly anodyne.

As noted, some would have him be as one.

Idealism largely pervaded the effort. Members of the HQ2 team earnestly believed that any city had an opportunity to win.

“We genuinely thought we were working on the most important economic development project in a generation and were going to change the lives of hundreds of thousands of people,” said one of the HQ2 employees.

Idealism is an oft repeated theme. One of the most common ones. Almost every single provided example of it faces a torturous demise.

“They were all outraged,” Grella said. “And then they fell into line.”

With that, the public turned against the city council in voter polling and sided with their local companies and largest employers; stunned council members were now outmaneuvered.
Eighty business officials, union leaders, and politicians signed a full-page letter to the company, a docile apology begging for a second chance, which was published as an advertisement in the New York Times.

A sad and unfortunate state of a managed democracy.

Their infallible and righteous leader was, after all, a flawed human.

This was presented as being entirely sincere and what they actually believed. Unfortunately, these beliefs seem rather common. I assume one of the primary thought patterns is, "No person could be worthy of such devotion from us, so he must be more than human" which is such an awful way to be.

MBS again texted Bezos, writing a message in English replete with typos: “Jeff all what you hear or told to it’s not true and it’s matter of time tell you know the truth. There is nothing against you or amazon from me or Saudi Arabia.”

This was certainly a display of relative power between people.

His personal wealth was larger than the gross domestic product of Hungary; larger than even the market capitalization of General Motors.

Meanwhile Elon Musk is closer to the even larger New Zealand. "In the 35th annual Forbes list of the world's billionaires, the list included 2,755 billionaires with a total net wealth of $13.1 trillion, up 660 members from 2020; 86% of these billionaires had more wealth than they possessed last year." That's nearly the GDP of China, the 2nd highest, at $16 trillion. Truly they have inordinate amount of wealth and therefore influence.

“I’m all for competition, but I did not start my business and go sell on Amazon so that I could eventually become fertilizer for Amazon’s growth as I am buried and destroyed,” he told me. “It’s apparent this is happening to a lot of sellers, and I don’t believe it’s right. What Amazon does is analogous to being invited over for Thanksgiving dinner, then finding out as you sit down to dine that you’re the turkey.”

“Amazon doesn’t give a shit about brands,” said Aarstol, who by 2020 was almost completely off Amazon and focusing on sales over his own website. “They don’t care whether you live or die.”

The listing finally returned after four days and $100,000 in lost sales—and only then because Thompson paid Amazon $60,000 a year for a premium service to engage the attention of an account manager, which “feels a bit like a protection racket,” he said.

To me these are completely obvious assertions, but believing they aren't is probably a requirement for being able to do anything like this.

“In fact, I predict one day Amazon will fail. Amazon will go bankrupt. If you look at large companies, their lifespans tend to be thirty-plus years, not a hundred-plus years.”

This sort of statement would be entirely expected of Bezos, as it's practical philosophy about his employees writ large.