When I discuss 'Policies and Procedures' (including but not limited to tech like the OP's Amazon example) I often refer to "Plug and Play" staff [1]. If, for any reason, an employee leaves a position then the business is able to replace them with minimum fuss. The more the role can depend on technology, the more 'true' this is, but it needn't be seen as tech-specific.
Staff of course have a different view as to their "fungibility". I tend to overcome this in two ways:
First, "If you can't be replaced then you can't be promoted." That resonates a lot.
Second, I replace the 'Bus Factor'[2] context with the 'Lottery Factor'. More directly, "How many of you, if you won $35M in Powerball, would still be working here next year? So let's plan for at least one of you to win the lottery."
(They're not bad at maths, they get that it's the same conversation as being hit by a bus, but the energetic flip leads to faster engagement in the process.)
Staff of course have a different view as to their "fungibility". I tend to overcome this in two ways:
First, "If you can't be replaced then you can't be promoted." That resonates a lot.
Second, I replace the 'Bus Factor'[2] context with the 'Lottery Factor'. More directly, "How many of you, if you won $35M in Powerball, would still be working here next year? So let's plan for at least one of you to win the lottery."
(They're not bad at maths, they get that it's the same conversation as being hit by a bus, but the energetic flip leads to faster engagement in the process.)
[1] Maybe I need a new Cloud metaphor?
[2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor