Does loyalty exist in employer-employee relationship?

Does loyalty exist in employer-employee relationship?

Before answering this question, I'd like to set the context :

1. We are talking about "profit-oriented" company, so please exclude those "not-for-profit" organizations

2. When the employer joined the company at the begining, there must NOT be any DIRECT relationship between the employer and employee, for example: a person who joined his own familiy business - we exclude such employee.

I've heard some managers or owners saying this: "this guy is very loyal to our company, he has been working here for > 10 years"

I strongly disagree that the guy stays there because he is loyal. IMO, loyalty does NOT exist between employer-employee within the context mentioned.

What say you ?

 

 

 

Loyalty CAN exist between person-to-person (employee-employer) and person-to-entity (employee-company). Loyalty can be cultivated and instilled.

Most of the time, employees are encouraged to be loyal to a company - to share its vision, to be loyal to its system regardless of who is heading it. For such loyalty to exist, a company must take good care of their employees, understand their problems and needs, and get good managers to manage their downlines.

Managers are frequently the problems to employee dissatisfaction. Managers must be in-sync with the company's policy and direction, and guide employees towards the company's goals. Managers should lead by example. Managers should make the staff feel belonged. When a manager represents a company to take care of its people, company loyalty is created.

When managers go beyond the boundary of superior-subordinate relationship, trust and loyalty can be developed at a personal level. When managers start to know their people at the personal level, deep friendship can be established and work can sometimes, be thought as a 'favour to help a friend'.

Both types of loyalty exist. I personally witness person-to-person loyalty. During the depression times, everyone was uncertain and some were thinking of quiting. However, my ex-CTO tells everyone he stays and based on their trust levels, everyone stayed!

But after a while, the company didn't show any signs of improvement and they offered VSS (Voluntary Separation Scheme). My ex-CTO then decides to apply for it and all the staff applied. Eventually, those who did not get the VSS resigned as well.

This is an example where a leader had lit the fire in people's heart (as opposed to a manager lighting the fire under people's chair) and people believed in him, and would go an extra mile for him. I'm sure we have all heard about teams leaving a company together.

As for my other minor experience. I have this friend of mine who have followed me for 3 jobs and during his first job with me, I was forced to retrench him.

To add a little more, loyalty to company cannot exist in a contract-staff environment because everything is based on buy-and-sell concept.

Have you thought about this:

"If that employee is able to find a new employer which offers, not only 100% increment in pay , but also an environment which is as friendly as what he/she is having now and better career prospect, would he/she still be loyal and stick to the current employer ?"

If you say only 1% of chance, then I agree - loyalty does exist but extremely rare.

My point is this:

People work so long in a company (say 10 years or more), basically because of these two reasons:

1. They don't bother to look for new job

2. They can't find a new job which is better (substantially better or overall better)

To illustrate point no.2: a MIS manager, getting salary of  $5000, who cannot find a new job say as CIO with $10,000 pay (please note: Ceteris paribus applied)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of our parents (from the Baby Boomers generation) took up one (or two) job and stick to it until they are 55 years old. They are more tolerant, more family focus and prefers stability.

In today's world, where the workforce is primarily made up of Generation X and slowly, Generation Y - work behaviour has changed. Gen X are less tolerant nowadays and when they are unhappy with their jobs, they will choose to leave (even it means changing careers).

This low tolerance mentality has also been passed down to the Gen Y and backed by the wealth of the Gen X parents. Most Gen Y complain more than Gen X.

As for your example, no doubt it can be tempting to most people, however, to some, big pay-cheque and big title might not be the determining factor. I have personally turned down a high paying job as a CTO because I did not want to abandon my ex-boss (he has taken care of everyone of us on a personal level and I think the company has treated me well).

I think it is better that you don't over generalize your opinion. There are some who would really give up high paying jobs for various reasons. Up to some level, love and belonging means more than 'greenbags'. Afterall, you can't earn all the money in this world.

I think you got my point no.2 wrong, I mentioned "better" and not "better pay".

The example of 100% increment in pay with the assumption that all other factors remained (which in real life, this is not very possible) is simply one of myriad of scenarios which I considered as "better".

It is important to take note that I'm not emphasizing on money here, I'm emphasizing on offer which is "substantially better". That means you have considered all factors (from A to Z) and after considering all those factors, you reach a conclusion that the new offer is "substantially better" - but yet you still stick to your current employer, then you are in my 1% list.

Please also note that the "substantially better" is relative from individual to individual - like what you said, money is not everything and it does not mean the same to everybody.

domainconnect wrote:

Please also note that the "substantially better" is relative from individual to individual - like what you said, money is not everything and it does not mean the same to everybody.

You may want to narrow down what is in "substantially better" then. Because people will post their general opinion according to their definition and criteria, and they may not fit into what you want to know.

Perhaps by asking, "Will you leave your job if you have ... ", You get those who fit the bill to answer.

You cannot generalise by thinking "If people don't fill your criteria they fall into your 1%". How did you derive your 1%? What sort of demographics you use? What is your sampling size and which geographical location did you collect your sample? How you do your segmentation? What are the supporting facts and statistics?

You cannot feel that because most people behave in such away around you the world is like that. Because, in other areas and age-groups, people differ in thoughts.

For instance, I have a staff who likes working with me and likes the company but she had to give up the job for a lower paying one because she wanted to be closer to home. And I left my previous company for this one with lower salary because I have that trust with the CTO.

People are driven by many factors. I'm driven by compliance to my dreams but that doesn't mean loyalty don't exist. One form of loyalty I give every company I joined, is my devotion to my work. In my 10 years of career, I never took up a single freelance job. That's is my commitment and loyalty.

Many cool comments!

I feel loyalty is a chemistry product betwen persons or entities, usually assoicated with trust, respect, obligation and profit, in the decreasing order of binding efficiency.

I would rather call it a byproduct rather than endproduct, because there could be no universal formulae/way to mass produce such things, when trying to generalize for the sake of macro-management.

 

Relationships always work both ways. Granted, there are employees who are selfish and wish to scale the world by using the big names as stepping stones.

But on hindsight. as an employer if you're loyal to a good employee, you'll offer him perks, benefits, salary increments, conversion to perm, training, etc., to keep him and make him feel appreciated as a human resource, not a dispensable commodity. Focus on heartstrings and team-building to ensure cohesiveness and spontaneity. However if you betray your employee by exploiting him incessantly, hoarding on the finances and holding back on the benefits, you can't blame the employee for turning the tables on you. Because you deserve it.

Which is why IT companies here can continue hiring people on contract with pathetic salaries or outsource portions of their projects to low-cost software houses in India/China thinking eveything would just turn out fine. Good luck on your projects man. Everything comes with a price, you'll save on one part but you'll screw up on another.

FD, I cannot "narrow down" the "substantially better" as that will render my whole argument to be invalid. It's precisely because I understand that money does not have the same impact on everyone that I did not say "substantially better pay". Also, do not take my 1% figure too seriously :) Instead, you should read it as "extremely rare". My apology if I've misled you to take the figure too seriously.

However, you are right to put it into this kind of question:

"If you are able to get an offer which is substantially better for you, will you stick (like stickies.NET :) to your current employer?"

If the answer is "yes", you are in my list of the "extremely rare" type. An employer who can get such employee is very lucky.

It's extremely important to take note that before coming to a conclusion that an offer is  "substantially better" for you, you must have considered factor A to Z according to your own definitions.

IMO, these are some of the COMMON factors:

1. Pay

2. Job Security (more, less, equal ?)

3. Career Prospect/Growth

4. Working Environment (e.g. pro-family, flexi-hour, etc.)

5. Or simply, the job you like ?

 

 

 

This is my 0.02 cents...

I want to agree with poopee first, that relationship works both way. This is my personal experience. I started a company with my friend before, (though it sank, I value the experience). Start-ups, as most, if not all, has nothing to offer. I approach my friend and project mate in polytechnic to help us create this dream, and after careful consideration, he joined us.

Lets consider the above factors you gave.

1. Pay, I couldn't afford to pay him well, just enough for him to survive. Was there any stock options available? None, even if there is, its worth zero.

2. Job Security, there is, because I won't fire him. He is someone that I will gladly invite him to be in my team again in the future.

3. Career Prospect / Growth, if the company grows, he will probably grow with it.

4. Working Environment, flexi-hour, but also very long hour. (I have a bed in the office, and I slept there for many months before)

5. Simply the job you like, he got to answer this.

I consider him a very loyal employee... And I brought another friend in as well, who stayed on even when I left the partnership, until the company sank. I had another friend that is working in another start-up who stayed on even when conditions aien't good (low pay, super long hours, but good career prospect), until it is very clear that his boss only takes care of himself, and then plans to leave surfaced.

I heard of instances that whole marketing team moved from a insurance company to a local bank before, when the bank poached the team leader, the leader brought the entire team over. Hows that for loyalty.

I believe its a give and take situation, but the problem is, employers don't believe that employees are loyal, and hence all kinds of crap working environment and contract employement. Employees on the other hand don't believe that company loyalty exist any more. Many working in mncs says this to me, and one should change job every two years, or market value will go down.

My take is, employee might be loyal when they first joins the company, but a lot depends on employers, whether they spot these people and take care of them. If employers continue to treat them as a means of achieving their own goals, and throw them away when the goal is accomplished, loyalty of course won't exist.

Employees on the other hand, must realise that there is no perfect employer. The grass is always greener over the other side.

Kitkai, though your example of a loyal friend who worked for you is out of context (see my first post for the context set), I truly appreciate your sharing. Thanks...

You also mentioned this: "I had another friend that is working in another start-up who stayed on even when conditions aien't good (low pay, super long hours, but good career prospect)..."

Did he stay because he could not get an offer which was "substantially better" at that point in time? Would he stay if he got an offer which was substantially better? If yes, that's another rare employee :)

 

kitkai wrote:

I heard of instances that whole marketing team moved from a insurance company to a local bank before, when the bank poached the team leader, the leader brought the entire team over. Hows that for loyalty.

That doesn't sound like loyalty to the company at all (which is the employer entity). In such a scenario, this influence is more of a personal movement/style as opposed to corporate culture. Meaning, should one manager/boss leave, the wonderful culture that permeates throughout the organisation should not change, thus inducing loyalty to company and not person.

And sadly, the former is the regular case.

I feel it must start right from the ideals and goals of top management - do they want to retain their employees? And what strategies to ensure employees feel right at home and happy? If they leave it to middle management (as in, completely disinterested in such affairs) to think this through, they're finished.

icelava wrote:

kitkat wrote: I heard of instances that whole marketing team moved from a insurance company to a local bank before, when the bank poached the team leader, the leader brought the entire team over. Hows that for loyalty. That doesn't sound like loyalty to the company at all (which is the employer entity). In such a scenario, this influence is more of a personal movement/style as opposed to corporate culture. Meaning, should one manager/boss leave, the wonderful culture that permeates throughout the organisation should not change, thus inducing loyalty to company and not person. And sadly, the former is the regular case."

I rather not say "sadly", it is a necessary starting point.

I think of loyalty being a chemistry byproduct between persons, the binding key can be many (trust, respesct - positive one, or obligation - neutral one, or profit - negative), therefore loyalty can only be micro-managed, rather than macro-managed: some type of binding keys are transferrable sort of a=b, b=c then a=c (of coz, this is over simplification), some type of binding keys are not. In addition, relationship between persons are not linear or simple hierarchy even there is hierarchy in the company, it is like a web of connections (each arc would generate weighted influence)

From the macro point of view, naturally all bindings would only reinforce each other towards a single end - either most are loyal or most are not - there is hardly any middleground as equilibrium.

Only when the eco-system has good micro-environment throughout, then the collective culture can produce loyalty .

But anyway, it is byproduct when people working towards something else - one example might be microsoft product teams.

 

icelava wrote:

kitkai wrote: I heard of instances that whole marketing team moved from a insurance company to a local bank before, when the bank poached the team leader, the leader brought the entire team over. Hows that for loyalty. That doesn't sound like loyalty to the company at all (which is the employer entity). In such a scenario, this influence is more of a personal movement/style as opposed to corporate culture. Meaning, should one manager/boss leave, the wonderful culture that permeates throughout the organisation should not change, thus inducing loyalty to company and not person.

If you realise, that's precisely the reason why job rotation exists in some organizations like the uniformed groups (regulars), govt. ministries, stat boards and NGOs. On the surface, job rotation is introduced to expose one to the different skills in use within the organization so that he or she may learn, grow and rise up the ranks. But in truth, security plays a big part - job rotation ensures that loyalty to a person doesn't go beyond, say, 3 years. Imagine if you're this star performer and charismatic leader of a CO and you've gained a cult following within the battalion fanatical enough to lead a revolt.

I am not too sure we're talking about government/military agencies here.