Hacker News Reader

Comment by greyboy | Hacker News Reader

Agreed. I'm one of the most loyal employees you'll ever find ... as long as I'm treated fairly. In exchange for good work all they need to provide is ample benefits, flexible schedule, satisfactory compensation, work with challenging/motivating problems - or some healthy mix of those.

Once the balance shifts to (my personal feeling of) inequality, I have no problem (or choice?) but to move on. Gone are they days of "lifers" with company provided pensions that could possibly make that decision (to move) harder (a la IBM full term careers).

View on HN

That's not really the definition of 'loyalty' they're looking for though.

"I'm great to work with as long as I get my way".

People who want 'loyalty' are really looking for people who will stick around when things get tough - perhaps pay cuts, wage freezes, benefits reductions, longer work hours - etc. If you stay through those, without complaint, you're "loyal". Being "loyal" as long as "I'm treated fairly" isn't really what they're after.

I think part of the "Being treated fairly" is transparency from upper management. If the company is in trouble and they are open and honest about it, and they were previously generous to their employees, then those employees will rise to the call. The book Influence [1] calls this concept Reciprocity, and Peopleware likewise talks about this. It's the same concept that good commanders use to inspire loyalty and trust in their troops.

There are also other ways to compensate an employee that does not necessarily involve a cost, such as flexible hours or work from home.

[1]: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/479628.Influence_Rev_

Of course, I disagree - I call that being taken advantage of. If I could depend on the employers honoring the same thing - employing people "through thick and thin" - I'd believe it, but it's almost unheard of.

Unfortunately, I worked for five years through "when things got tough" - random layoffs, no raises, decreasing benefits. How loyal does one have to be to satisfy your definition?

It's neverending.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com