That article is using a horrible methodology. The reason the average tenure is low is because Amazon is growing at around 60% year-over-year.

At that growth rate, you'd expect the tenure numbers to be dominated by hiring rather than turnover, a point the article misses completely.

(Per their annual reports, Amazon had 88,400 employees on 12/31/2012, 56,200 on 12/31/2011, and 33,700 on 12/31/2010)

Hmm. I think data showing hiring vs time for companies would be more relevant than average tenure of an employee.

i.e. The faster a company grows, the less likely/harder it is to maintain culture and enforce hiring/recruiting standards - I can see how that may lead to shitty interview questions.

yaa average tenure never makes sense at all, i agree with you on your point.

Cmon grow up short tenures don't prove that its a bad company to work at, then in your opinion google is also not an appropriate company to work for.