So What, Who Cares (vol 2, issue 106) Whether data is really a way to drive a workplace's culture

Hello! A quick programming note: I will be taking an end-of-summer break from So What, Who Cares? from August 24 to September 4, but will mark la rentrée with a Labor Day issue on September 7.
So the redwoods were the usual -- breathtaking, amazing, lush, primeval -- and I am sorry to report that all of the lizards were too hung over from celebrating their National Me Day to make any appearances in the wild. We had to settle for snakes, Roosevelt Elk, sea lions and red-tailed hawks.
*
And then I came home to "Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace." It's a long, hard and necessary read, but not exactly a surprising one.
So what? How Amazon treats its warehouse workers and seasonal help has been known for a long time (vol 1, issue 61), and how Amazon has run over other industries in its quest to dominate a market is -- again -- not new news (vol 2, issue 86).
They are notable for not joining the race to retain talent via generous paid lead policies (vol 2, issue 102). Per one part of the piece:
Motherhood can also be a liability. Michelle Williamson, a 41-year-old parent of three who helped build Amazon’s restaurant supply business, said her boss, Shahrul Ladue, had told her that raising children would most likely prevent her from success at a higher level because of the long hours required. Mr. Ladue, who confirmed her account, said that Ms. Williamson had been directly competing with younger colleagues with fewer commitments, so he suggested she find a less demanding job at Amazon.
And then there's this part:
A woman who had breast cancer was told that she was put on a “performance improvement plan” — Amazon code for “you’re in danger of being fired” — because “difficulties” in her “personal life” had interfered with fulfilling her work goals. Their accounts echoed others from workers who had suffered health crises and felt they had also been judged harshly instead of being given time to recover.
A former human resources executive said she was required to put a woman who had recently returned after undergoing serious surgery, and another who had just had a stillborn child, on performance improvement plans, accounts that were corroborated by a co-worker still at Amazon. “What kind of company do we want to be?” the executive recalled asking her bosses.
Who cares? The hook of the piece is that Amazon uses a lot of quantifiable data to assess how well its employees are doing -- and that Amazon's workplace culture is a forerunner of the American workplace as a whole. (vol 2, issue 56) Quoth the NYT piece:
“Data creates a lot of clarity around decision-making,” said Sean Boyle, who runs the finance division of Amazon Web Services and was permitted by the company to speak. “Data is incredibly liberating.”
Ostensibly, the data streams help refine a workplace culture that is geared toward an optimal customer experience. There is not, however, much in the piece to indicate what happens if or when the data goes against the company's core culture.
For example, there are reams of data on the effectiveness of a shorter workweek (vol 1, issue 41), and data on the insane productivity of working mothers (vol 1, issue 45), and data on the unprofitable bias against working mothers (vol 2, issue 32), and data on the rise of workplace productivity when employees can take care of their personal business without stress or penalty (vol 2, issue 37).
So really, the question is not "Is this how data-driven workplaces operate?" The question is "Exactly what data does a company decide to pay attention to, and what does that say about management?"
*
Editorial note: I do link to Amazon.com for most media recommendations. These links do not reflect an endorsement of Amazon.com's internal policies; I used Amazon for expedience.
*

Your pop-culture note of the day: Linda Holmes' essay, "Television 2015: Is There Really Too Much TV?" should be required reading for anyone who's into TV and already plotting out how to program their DVR, handle their Hulu queue and navigate their Netflix list in a week that has only 168 hours in it. It's a great challenge to the contention that there's a surfeit of programming right now, and a great forecast for the forces about to hit the industry.
This paragraph is, to me, absolutely pivotal for the entire piece:
Even if we agree that Too Much Television is the right analysis, where in media is anyone successfully forcing backward the progression toward more stuff created for less money by more people, requiring different distribution models and better help to find what's good? That progression is underway in music, in film, in books, in criticism — who would ever say there are too many bands making too much music and really believe you could do anything about it?
And it reminds me of an earlier essay of Holmes' that I think of often: "The Sad, Beautiful Fact That We're Going To Miss Almost Everything." In that essay, she outlines the tension between surrendering to the reality that we're never going to be able to read, listen to, or see everything worth reading, listening to or seeing in the world versus the impulse to cull -- critically, ruthlessly or selectively -- so we can make manageable our world of letters and music and visual art. Holmes' follow-up conversation on "Talk of the Nation" is worth a read and/or listen to, because it lays down an eminently useful blueprint for finding a way to manage media consumption in an age of wonderful plenty.
*
A NEW MONTH, A NEW FOOTER: Here's a free and easy way to show people you like them -- send them here to subscribe to So What, Who Cares? You can plumb the archives here. You can always reach out to me via Twitter or email. You can go where you want to/ to a place they'll never find/ and we can act like we come from out of this world/ and leave the real one far behind.