Here is a blog post that I believe is worth reading: http://heartmindcode.com/2013/08/16/loyalty-and-layoffs/
You’re probably too busy or too uninterested, so let me give you the TL;DR: Forget company loyalty, and be loyal only to yourself. I’d say more, but this guy is a wizard at writing and he’ll do a better explanation. Read his post.
This should be common sense, but it really isn’t. Although I can’t say I’ve had a lot of experience with the matter, I have actually seen it first hand and what I saw wasn’t pleasant. I won’t go too deep into the matter, but let’s just say that I agree with everything this writer has to say. Company loyalty is stupid. In fact, loyalty to any entity without proper cause is stupid. All human interactions are based on social contract. While loyalty definitely has its place, why would you ever be loyal to an entity that doesn’t honor its end of the bargain? You wouldn’t sign a deal with the devil, and just because your company has a smile on its face doesn’t mean that it has the best intentions.
There are many ways to play the game of life but you have to be sure that you’re playing it right. With every action, your goal should fulfill some end that would better your personal life. That sounds a little harsh… Personally, I do believe in Rousseau’s social contract and do categorize all personal relationships under that banner. But I understand not everyone is of the same camp. Most people have a little more heart than I do, which is something that I personally might need to work on.
Regardless, business should be treated as cold and heartless. If there is no profit involved, why are we conducting business at all. When I sign up for a job, it is because I have something to offer and I expect something in return. It is a trade, where the employee gives up skill and labor in exchange for wealth and security. Wealth and security should be the only currency that your bosses should be allowed to deal in. Loyalty, is a construct that does not bring bread to the table. It is a promise, but it is not legally binding, and what use is that? It would be different if me and the company knew each other on a first name basis, but for the bigger companies, unless you knew enough people who held enough of the company’s shares, (51% is the obvious minimum, but lets be skeptical and call it 80%), you don’t really know the company on a first name basis. In their eyes, there is only one reason why you should be allowed to keep your job, if you help the company make more money that what they are spending on you, ie. you are a net positive investment.
This isn’t the company’s fault. It’s just how business is and should be done.
This isn’t to say that I approve of giant corporations not rewarding loyalty. The stories from the blog post and the accompanying reddit discussion where I found it both indicate that this is about short-term profit. Work experience is a difficult skill to cultivate and it’s pretty dumb to expect fresh graduates to know how to wield a wrench on their first day (another sad affair, by the way). I believe in the value of employees who love their job and know what they are doing.
Actually, I have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m not the boss yet.
Reading this blog post made me think about my philosophy towards the fraternity. I’ve always been a hard ass on members who don’t pull their weight. The strategy for me is clear: we are a group of individuals who got together so that we can help each other be better people, both individually as well as in our careers. Clearly, if a potential member has nothing to offer us, it sort of defeats the purpose seeing as there is no trade potential. We shouldn’t work for free, and this isn’t a philanthropy. It’s especially worse when picking up a new member potentially harms the fraternity.
But, this is where my philosophy differs from the rest of the chapter. True brothers, love their fellow brothers unconditionally and will do whatever it takes to watch their backs. I don’t know how I feel about this. Is unconditional love smart, or is it something I’m lacking?
To be investigated at a later date.