Ex-Amazon executive reveals how Jeff Bezos reacted when a VP argued with him over Prime

'At Amazon, Jeff Bezos told us to not compromise for the sake of social cohesion,' Ethan Evans, who worked with the tech giant for more than 15 years before retiring in 2020, said.

A former Amazon executive has shared an insight into how the founder and the second richest person in the world, Jeff Bezos, would handle arguments during company meetings. Ethan Evans was the vice-president of Prime Gaming before he retired in 2020. Having worked for the tech giant for more than 15 years under Bezos's leadership, Evans said that the tech billionaire promoted a culture where good ideas are not missed because people feel like they can’t argue on their behalf.

"At Amazon, Jeff Bezos told us to 'not compromise for the sake of social cohesion.' I saw him tolerate lengthy, exhausting arguments as a result," he wrote on X. "When I was a director, my VP constantly argued with Jeff and refused to back down. Their main, recurring argument was about an arcane economic model called the Prime Attribution Model (PAM)."

PAM was important because it determined how the fee paid by Amazon Prime members was divided between business units. Evans explained that since their business (Prime Gaming) was not getting anything, he and his VP disagreed with how the model was designed.

There were several debates on this and once, Evans recalls, the argument between Bezos and his VP went on for so long that the CFO stepped in and asked, "Jeff, do you want me to end this?"

"Basically, he was offering to scold my VP and shut him up so that Jeff would not have to be the bad guy," Evans said, adding that Bezos explicitly said no. "The debate was drawn out and exhausting, but Jeff clearly showed his preference for a strong, lengthy debate instead of a comfortable, convenient compromise."

Although the PAM model remained unchanged, Evans said he admired Bezos for not shutting them down and continuing to participate in the debate every time there was new evidence for a change.

"It was a years-long debate that never changed anything, but not shutting it down allowed every piece of each argument to be brought to light. The result was that a fully informed decision could be made, even if it was one that my VP and I disagreed with," he said.