> The big problem is legacy employees run every part of the company
The article comes to the exact opposite conclusion.
The article repeatedly cites problems associated with culture breakdown, and tenured employees are a key source of continuity for culture. The article goes to some lengths to underline that the culture is a positive and key differentiator for Amazon.
The more interesting point is that the cultural element looks like it is highly durable and effective, but has broken down as Bezos (the most tenured employee!) has pulled back. So it's not as durable as everyone thought.
I don't think those are mutually exclusive conclusions.
Tenured employees help maintain culture, but they don't guarantee that it stays static.
Culture developed by the employees who spent their first 5 years growing with the company is not necessarily the same culture developed by those same employees who have stayed in the same role for the last 5 years with a vanishing potential for growth.
If the culture you want to maintain is "first 10 minutes of every meeting is everyone reading the agenda" or "thorough security review for all changes before go live" then you want slow turnover so new hires can be trained and indoctrinated.
On the other hand if the culture you want to maintain is "constantly be trying out new technologies, new ways of working and fresh ideas, at the cutting edge nothing is set in stone" you might benefit from new employees who know firsthand how other companies solved whatever problem you're facing.
Absolutely. A company that goes through an extended period of growth and success can retain (cargo-cult style) all the approaches from that era even while the conditions change. That ossification is obviously not great unless the culture is especially adaptable.
And the conditions for most big tech companies have changed radically over the last few years. So the subtle devaluation or reinterpretation of culture is kind of inevitable when forever-growth turns into a zero-sum game. As you say, it might even be the veterans who are doing it.
Culture is not singular, but the summation of many different desires and behaviors. The behaviors of those who climb and then defend a position is likely different from the people who change positions every few years. As time progresses, more of the defenders stay, and more of the changers leave. This would shift the culture over time, not because it’s made up of different people, but because only a subset remain.
The article comes to the exact opposite conclusion.
The article repeatedly cites problems associated with culture breakdown, and tenured employees are a key source of continuity for culture. The article goes to some lengths to underline that the culture is a positive and key differentiator for Amazon.
The more interesting point is that the cultural element looks like it is highly durable and effective, but has broken down as Bezos (the most tenured employee!) has pulled back. So it's not as durable as everyone thought.