A network of current and ex-co-workers is valuable. The point I was trying to make was that a person shouldn't stay in a position solely out of a sense of comradery or loyalty to one's co-workers.
> It's not a matter of friendship, but of interests.
This is a good point, but missing one of the big things that affect dynamics: there is typically a huge imbalance of power between an employee and employer, so most often if your interests diverge, the employee will lose. The worst case scenario for this can be terrible, even for an employee who has done nothing wrong.
Exactly this. I've generally loved the small teams I've been on, and keep in touch with co workers from every company I've worked for and left. But that doesn't mean I held any allegiance to the company that we both worked for. I like people not corporations. Yes it sucks to 'leave' your friends behind at a job, but if they're really your friends you'll still keep in touch.
But also your fellow employees would not be wrong to leave their job (and hence you) if a better opportunity presented itself, and I don't think they should be disparaged for making that choice. Such is the peril of friendship via work.
> Loyalty does not exist (company, coworkers, etc)
I can't quite call myself a veteran engineer yet, but loyalty and positive relationships with coworkers is a huge boon. I agree that companies will often screw you. Manager and policies can change in an instant and they only look out for their self interests.
But coworkers? Find great coworkers that you work well with and you will always have job opportunities. If a coworker jumps ship to another company, it's likely because the pay and benefits are better. Now I have an "in" for a referral plus insight into how the company operates and how I'll get along with the team.
> I personally don't mind it. It's a good reminder that we as individuals are just replaceable cogs in the machine, that all of us are only as valuable as the productivity we can contribute in the future, and that our sense of loyalty to it should be adjusted accordingly.
To the company as a whole, yes. To each other? No, I don't think I believe this. This doesn't mean you owe anything to your teammates in terms of staying in a job if a better opportunity comes or if you aren't happy or treated right, but we're still all human beings seeing each other every day, and if you build a bond with those you work with, it's not any less real just because you only happened to meet due to the coincidence of being hired by the company. I've only been out of college for less than a decade, and I've had some coworkers I did not get along at all with, some who I was indifferent towards, a great many I had casual friendly relationships with, and a select few who are this point are as close to any friends I've met outside work and remained that way after one or both of us moved on from the job where we met. I still don't think I'd be completely emotionally unaffected if someone who I was currently working with in the first two categories happened to die, and I certainly would be if someone I worked with in one of the latter two groups did. It's not at all uncommon to feel grief or numbness when even a casual acquaintance outside of work dies, and the fact that whatever company you work for happens to consider you only a value-generating machine doesn't magically make this go away. Humans are humans even when working together, and I don't think pretending that's not the case is in any way more emotionally healthy than acknowledging it.
I don't disagree entirely. . .and in my previous life as a manager. . .and before that, as a team lead. . .I encouraged everyone to keep growing professionally and to keep their resume updated - and to never assume that they could stay forever and/or leave on their own terms. I told them that I did and that I just considered it sound professional advice, no matter how much we loved and respected each other, the organization's mission, etc. On the other hand, I do have loyalty to any co-workers and managers that I genuinely like AND respect. Not to the point that I would sacrifice myself professionally for them, but I do have loyalty. And in past lives, I've told those that I trusted to be mum and professional when I was starting to look for another position - even if was just another position in the same organization and just to give them a heads-up.
As a matter of fact, my peer in our organization left a few months ago. She felt guilty, knowing that my life would almost immediately become more difficult, but I stressed to her to do what was best for her. She started to waver when management asked her to delay her departure - I reiterated that she should not worry about me or management. She was loyal - which I appreciated. And I was loyal and shoved her out the door.
No because it's not a friendship between two people; it's a working relationship between two entities.
Be thankful you reached an agreement to get paid for work from the company that provides you a living; however, there is no loyalty beyond the work that you promised to do once the contract is signed.
At the end of the day, you are two entities mutually benefiting from a working relationship. Beyond the work, there is no loyalty nor should there be any expectation of one from either side.
The company's purpose is to make money for its stakeholders. If you are a hinderance to that purpose, then you'll be cut. The company won't proactively look for another position for you no matter how many years of experience you have with them or how you stuck up for them to disgruntled workers. They don't hear or care about that. If you can't bring them profit, then you are gone.
Of course, there will be individuals who stick up for you or find a position for you at the company, but that is a human being and not an abstract entity (aka the company).
> Coupled with a bias towards an employee's best interest, I think saying "can't" is reasonable.
I was pointing out your bias, and now I will point out that even your expression "an employee's best interest" is likewise biased. Not that I feel differently, of course, however there are people who are fiercely loyal to companies for a variety of reasons that you or I may not embrace.
The OP, for example, wants to go back to work at Microsoft. Why is this wrong? He obviously identifies strongly with the company and obtains some emotional satisfaction from his association with them.
Let's compare and contrast to relationships. Many people fall into relatinships I would consider asymmetrical: One person is more fiercely loyal than the other. Many people feel this is a bad thing, and indeed some peopel are hurt in these affairs, especially if they secretly wish the other person to reciprocate in kind.
Yet there are people who are perfectly happy to be in these relationships where they are the expendable party. The movie "Adaptation" featured an example of this where one of the two Nicholas Cage characters describes having a High School crush on a girl that despised him. His "twin brother" felt differently, of course.
Please don't misunderstand, I fully agree with you that being an "expendable asset" is not financially advantageous, however I can't ignore the fact that may people out there seem to derive some satisfaction from such employment and I'm not sure they are ignorant of the potential consequences.
I conclude that there are people who are being perfectly realistic and rational about such employment choices, even if they are not the choices I would embrace.
That's true if you don't need recommendations from the people you're working with to get your next job, if you don't want to get promotions (which help you get better jobs down the road!), and if you are content to spend 40 hours a week from now until you retire just coasting through life.
I think a better way to look at it is -- don't be loyal to something that can't be loyal to you. But you can and should let yourself care about the work you're doing and the individuals you're working with. That way, if you do end up leaving when you don't want to, you have accomplishments and a network of people who know what you're capable of. And up until then, you can take pride in what you're doing and feel good about how you're treating the people you're doing it with.
> No company is loyal to its employees. People are capable of loyalty, but companies are simply not capable of loyalty.
This is a good point. I have had bosses I liked and trusted and I trusted them, but not the "company" as such. If you replaced them, it wouldn't be the same. Maybe I'd be able to trust the new person or maybe I wouldn't, but that's what would matter.
That aside, the company culture and rules can influence whether it's more likely to hire good people or bad ones. There are some companies set up to do regular layoffs and compete strongly enough that people are sabotaging each other and that just seems miserable.
I work for a place now that's a quiet, enjoyable workplace where everyone is trying to help each other do better while getting good compensation. Maybe I could make a bit more somewhere else, but I'm not sure it'd be worth giving up what I have now. Most people who work here have really long tenures (10+ years) and that's a good thing.
The post is narrowly focused. Unless the author plans to make no friends with anyone at a place where most people spend more than half of his awake hours, his plan is insufficient to make it easier to leave a job. At this point, I would say letting down my peers and friends at work is a strong motivation for me. Perhaps in the eyes of some people, perhaps the author, caring about what others think of me makes me somehow weaker or less "rational". As a matter of preference, I would rather trade off some independence for the benefits of friendship and camaraderie.
Furthermore, his argument is unrealistic. Most of us don't compare one job with no benefits vs. another with benefits. The situation in the Bay Area at least means that we are often comparing jobs with very similar benefits. Thus, the benefits offered by my current employer is nullified by the equally good benefits of the competing offer, just as companies offering the benefits hope they would do. In the end, most jobs in the Bay Area are fairly comparable in terms of benefits and pay. What matters are the less tangible things: culture, opportunity, challenge, etc. The biggest factor that's keeping me at my company right now are the friends I've made there over the years and I have no regrets about having tied myself down with friendship.
>>Your loyalty should be a reflection of your employer’s loyalty.
A company a group of people after all. It's easy to think about our jobs as benefits acquired for services rendered rather than a relationship with a group of people.
What is that you're talking about? I don't know anyone who stays at a company out of a sense of loyalty. Do you feel a sense of loyalty for the company you are working at? Would you stay there if you could get more money for the same work? If you would, congrats, you're loyal. Most people are not like you.
The article rehashes some well-known arguments, but the most interesting part of it for me was this:
> “People need to be in the office to be a part of the TEAM”
> This gets at a much deeper issue, however. Should we be loyal to companies who would lay us off at the drop of a hat to pad their quarterly earnings? Companies who decide the projects we work on have no merit but can’t be bothered to reassign us to more critical work after spending the time and money to get us in the door? Many of us feel the need to be loyal but what are we getting in return?
The author acknowledges that team-building may be easier in the office, but the question is whether team-building is of any benefit other than to keep employees stuck to their employer.
I've been in a team that I wanted to be loyal to. I'm actually still friends with some of my former teammates from there. It was a great job right up until the point where they laid off as many people as legally possible and lied about the reasons.
It might be different for an employee-owned cooperative, but if you're working for a corporation, loyalty is a bad tradeoff even if you like your team. The risk/reward of things like being honest with your manager about what isn't working just isn't there (and you'd be surprised - or maybe you wouldn't - how quickly a seemingly friendly manager can decide to act like a total dickhead, and there's nothing you can do about it if they do).
Thing is though from the other side even if you have good intentions, you still have more then one people to think about. So your loyalties are split. For an employee, it's only one entity to be loyal to.
I take the opposite view to most of the comments below, and have a strong opinion on it. I think the idea of long term loyalty to one company is naive, I'm sure there are exceptions, but, I believe staying at one place limits your personal growth, experience/variety, and most importantly earning potential. Work is transactional, most of us only do it because we get paid, if you get a better offer you should go, you owe your employer nothing. From the employers perspective, to keep good employees for as long as possible, you should devise a career and reward plan to keep good people engaged, and not relay on good will to keep people in your organisation. But factor in that people will leave and have good processes in place to deal with it.
I am in touch with my former coworkers and some managers. Over my work career sometimes i followed them, sometimes they follow me. I may not have loyalty to the company, but i have loyalty to my team.
reply