> Loyalty to a company is foolish, because the company has no loyalty to you.
Note, this is not necessarily true. For example, Japan's conglomerates are largely based on long-term loyalty.
I don't remember which business book it was -- one of those MBA type studies of successful businesses -- but one of the key take-a-ways that always stuck with me was that the most successful companies are the ones that are loyal to their employees, and have earned that loyalty. If any employee believes you'll have their back for the rest of their careers, then they'll act very differently, then if an employee feels that their job is just a "job", even if it is a good one.
It used to be true in US tech as well — you started with IBM, and you died in IBM. Loyalty was mutual — though in the end, everyone will still work towards their own self-interests… and a companies’ path to self-interest is much more far-reaching and callously achieved than you could ever hope to achieve.
It’s only with Silicon Valley did tech go so heavy with job-hopping — 2 year terms being the norm. And with the lack of loyalty to the company, so it goes back unto the employee (e.g. training a resource is a futile endeavor — he’ll probably leave once trained.. so look instead to make him useful, and if he learns, it’s incidental).
Which furthers the weird pseudo-credentialism we see today (where credentials are required for everything, but everyone assumes you still don’t actually know the subject) — if you can’t know someone’s skill set by working with them, and you don’t know them by reference… credentials are the next best thing — even if they’re not much.
> And with the lack of loyalty to the company, so it goes back unto the employee (e.g. training a resource is a futile endeavor — he’ll probably leave once trained.. so look instead to make him useful, and if he learns, it’s incidental).
This really, really hurts juniors. Recently, a colleague left because they hadn't promoted him to match what his responsibilities are. He got a 50% pay raise and the company is investing loads of scarce time into training his replacement. It makes so little sense to me that they wouldn't just match his salary (which they're doing for his replacement!) and avoid all the training costs.
There must be some kind of thing I'm missing here, because it makes no sense to me.
Note, this is not necessarily true. For example, Japan's conglomerates are largely based on long-term loyalty.
I don't remember which business book it was -- one of those MBA type studies of successful businesses -- but one of the key take-a-ways that always stuck with me was that the most successful companies are the ones that are loyal to their employees, and have earned that loyalty. If any employee believes you'll have their back for the rest of their careers, then they'll act very differently, then if an employee feels that their job is just a "job", even if it is a good one.