Recommended Free Tools
On November 14, 2016, Amazon said it would introduce a “radically simplified” annual employee-review process in 2017, with more emphasis on employees’ strengths. The announcement signaled a change to a system criticized as bureaucratic and competitive—but Amazon did not say whether it would end the ratings and ranking practices associated with its existing reviews.
What Amazon announced—and what it left unanswered
Amazon said the redesigned process would focus on strengths rather than “the absence of weaknesses” and would continue to evolve with employee feedback. Contemporary reporting expected the rollout in February 2017, but the company did not publish a detailed design explaining how ratings, calibration, compensation, promotions, or performance-related exits would work under the new process. GeekWire’s November 14, 2016 report covered the announcement; Human Resources Online’s November 16 report gave February 2017 as the expected timing.
That distinction matters: a stated shift in emphasis is not proof that Amazon eliminated employee ratings or forced ranking. The announcement described a redesign, not its full mechanics.
What the old OLR process was reported to involve
The process being reconsidered was known as the Organization and Leadership Review, or OLR. Contemporary accounts described it as an annual, manager-led review and calibration process in which employee ratings fed a forced curve or “stack rank.” “Rank-and-yank” was an outside label for the reported approach, not a precise Amazon policy statement.
#1 Best Overall
Accounts associated OLR with identifying lower performers and employees with growth potential, but the available reporting did not establish an official annual dismissal quota. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that Amazon formally fired a fixed percentage of its workforce each year. GeekWire’s contemporaneous coverage describes the reported system while noting that Amazon did not disclose the replacement’s details.
Why the process drew criticism
Reported employee and manager accounts described significant preparation work: managers gathered documentation to support review judgments, sometimes in a way they likened to assembling a legal case. Critics argued that forced ranking could make colleagues compete against one another, reward self-promotion, and disadvantage capable employees who were less visible or less politically skilled. They also warned that competition could undermine collaboration.
Rank #2
These were criticisms and reported experiences, not findings Amazon accepted as settled fact. The debate took place amid scrutiny amplified by a widely discussed 2015 New York Times account of Amazon’s workplace; Amazon disputed elements of that reporting. The available accounts do not establish that the Times article alone caused the review redesign.
Why Amazon’s growth made review design consequential
At the time of the announcement, Amazon had more than 300,000 employees worldwide—over six times its workforce five years earlier, according to contemporary reporting. In Washington state, the company had about 35,000 employees, up from roughly 25,000 a year before. Its expansion across warehouses, distribution operations, and corporate offices meant that a labor-intensive review process had to operate at increasing scale. GeekWire reported those figures in November 2016.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Later figures show the pace continued: Amazon’s 2017 shareholder letter said the company had more than 560,000 employees after creating more than 130,000 direct jobs that year, excluding acquisitions. Those later numbers are context for the company’s growth, not a description of its workforce on the date of the announcement. The letter also continued to emphasize high standards. Amazon’s 2017 shareholder letter provides that subsequent context.
Simplifying reviews did not necessarily mean lowering standards
The management challenge was to reduce paperwork and potentially destructive competition while still giving employees useful feedback and making rigorous performance decisions. A strengths-centered review could still identify development needs or inadequate performance; it did not imply automatic positive assessments. Conversely, removing a visible ranking system would not prove that ranking had disappeared from behind-the-scenes calibration, promotion, or compensation decisions.
- Less administrative burden: A simpler process could reduce time spent preparing and defending annual ratings.
- More developmental feedback: A strengths focus could make reviews more useful for coaching, while still addressing gaps.
- Consistency and transparency: Less formal documentation or greater manager discretion could make decisions harder for employees to understand or challenge.
- Peer input: Colleague feedback can broaden a manager’s view, but its value depends on who is asked and how their input is weighed.
The announcement is best understood as an attempt to change the measurement and feedback mechanism, not as evidence that Amazon abandoned accountability or its demanding performance culture.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What later references to Forte establish
In later material, Amazon described a review process called Forte that gathered feedback from roughly 7 to 20 peers. The feedback addressed Amazon Leadership Principles, employee strengths, and development areas. This shows that Amazon later described a feedback-oriented process with a strengths component. AWS Executive Insights’ account of Forte does not establish that Forte was exactly the process launched in February 2017, that it eliminated ranking or calibration, or that every Amazon business, role, and country used the same system.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesNor does the description demonstrate that the change improved morale, retention, or productivity. It documents a later process, not its organization-wide effects.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
