This was very much my experience, having worked in two different sub-organizations at AWS, and on several different services, in two different countries.

There's just extreme variation in the quality of the management, the quality of the engineers, the operational/development role split, the on-call schedule, and the development and testing methodology.

From the manager's side, you're absolutely correct. The SEV looks bad on you, and is a headache to document.

From the perspective of people you manage, it's a very different picture.

We (I say "we", because I was an IC) sit under you, and every year at performance review time you're effectively required to put some percentage of us in the "LE" bucket. Never mind that we could theoretically all HV3+ if you measure by "normal" peoples' standards, your manager isn't going to let you mark all of us as HV3 at the performance meetings. I know this, because I've been there as well at those meetings where truly high performing people were downrated to fit a distribution.

So what happens? When I see a peer's critical lurking bug, I have no incentive to fix it for the sake of prevention. If I fix it quietly so that it never surfaces, it looks like I haven't done any work for the week, or have done un-impactful work, and I get the stick from you. Preventing fires doesn't look like work, to non-technical eyes.

The only "safe" way to play this game of "survivor" is to let that bug surface eventually, then when the SEV comes up, I jump in and fix it, earning your approval, skip approval, VP approval, as well as potentially the other person gets the stick from you, because you have to give the stick to someone anyway, you get a reason to stick it on them. At least it's not getting stuck on me.

I'm sorry if this comes off as shocking to you, but it really shouldn't; the incentive structure is NOT set up for teamwork, plain and simple. If "putting customers first" is a value, then it absolutely needs to start from systematic changes of how people are managed.

Obviously experiences vary greatly, but I was on one of the largest AWS orgs and they were quite punitive. People would demand them for perceived slights, then assign reviewers that were tough or on their side. Many of my friends had different experiences, though.

Rube Goldberg machine attached with used bubble gum and somehow the bubblegum was chewed in all the wrong ways

AWS has had this reputation for over a decade. Every former AWS (including poached not fired) has relayed to me a verson of this.

Every once in a while (~1:12) you get one that sounds like a Mormon missionary praising how its not that way and AWS is perfect.

[dead]

If I worked at a place like that, I'd sure as hell work my butt of to get a job somewhere else.

Or in my case, actively ignore any and all recruiting from that sesspool.

If someone quits their job, do all their opinions suddenly become suspect? You're kind of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't. Either you work for the company and you are biased one way, or you quit and now your bias is now suddenly the other way. I've joined and quit many jobs and my opinion may or may not have changed due to my change in status but it is clearly and ad hominem attack.

This, exactly 100%

Yeah, I got my PMP before applying around, combined with some luck I suppose. My IT role was basically a solo sysadmin before where I basically was the technical PM + engineer in one, and I did that for about 8 years so I had a ton of experience I could spin on my resume.