4/24/2025 at 2:04:36 PM
I got it pretty early in my career that loyalty for a company is concept to make you work harder without asking anything in return. And the moment the company shifts focus and you are out of it, then suddenly you understand that this loyalty wasn't kind of a credits account which you've been saving all this time. It's simply nothing. You are on your own and can fuck off.So there's simply no place for loyalty in employer-employee relationships. One side pays money or whatever, the other is delivering the job being done. That's all.
by rckt
4/24/2025 at 2:59:58 PM
Keep in mind that the benefits of loyalty vary with the size of the organization and the number peers your name gets lost among in the org chart.The larger the company, and the more they're ballooned out with abstract drones chomping on abstract work items, the more loyalty becomes a means for abuse. Turnover is rampant and their processes are built to optimally accommodate it. They're egregores, not people, and they don't experience loyalty or attachment. But they do benefit from yours, and so they'll milk it until you give up
But in smaller groups and smaller communities, where you're actually working with people, loyalty and even affection can really make a difference in how satisfying your worklife is, how much security you can feel in your opportunities, etc
It's not so much that there's "no place for loyalty in employer-employee relationships", it's just that the place for loyalty is different depending on what's inhabiting the employer role opposite you -- and the high-profile large employers of the modern age are incapable of reciprocating. But if loyalty comes naturally to you, and feels good to you when reciprocated, you have the option to look elsewhere instead of seething in resentment and disappointment.
by swatcoder
4/24/2025 at 4:12:05 PM
There is a special form of small company that's even worse. It's the kind where "we're a family". Those are worse than anything a big company bureaucracy / bean-counting could ever be.by gorbachev
4/24/2025 at 5:06:46 PM
Small companies really magnify the extreems. Good ones are really great but bad ones are extra bad. Sadly, they are also nimble enough to switch between them, at least in one direction.by mohaine
4/24/2025 at 6:07:19 PM
Not only the extremes, also the speed: good employers can turn into bad employers (has the opposite ever happened? I'd love to learn of an example!), but big companies at least have some inertia while it happens. There's probably even some "Sun" still left, all those years after the Oracle takeover. Compare this to what happened at Komoot.by usrusr
4/24/2025 at 7:11:12 PM
I do not have an example of the opposite, but I can echo your comment.I was the first US employee of an Indian consulting startup. I was their engagement lead for a marquee account for the first 4 years and while I do not take all the credit, my management and I grew the account from 1 person to 250 by the time I left. What did I get in return? A 10% reduction in salary from my previous job, almost no pay hikes (there were some) for 4 years, a whole lot of "we are family" talk, and zero stock. Of course I was naive and did not have things in writing, but I still believe they owe me 3% of an 80 M exit price because that's what they verbally told me. But no, good employers turned into bad employers very quickly.
Of course there is a lot more to the story, I had my own faults, but I am not naming anyone and I am not publishing my story here. That life is over, I am not fighting that battle, this was 15-20 years back and I finally did move on and do other stuff.
But that 3% after a decade or more of (well managed) growth would have been awesome.
by kshacker
4/24/2025 at 7:49:50 PM
I have seen the opposite happen, but I'm fairly confident that few people that felt the pendulum swing from good to bad stick around long enough to feel the upward swing.by belthesar
4/24/2025 at 9:49:46 PM
I'm OOTL, what happened at Komoot..? Vaguely interested because I'd considered applying there for a role a year or so back but never went through with it...by shrikant
4/24/2025 at 10:26:24 PM
Founder(s) sold to Bendinggspoons who specialize in the kind of takeover where the buyer stops all development and tries to keep the money inflow from a service running with minimal maintenance crew. Evernote is the most famous example I think.Apparently 80% are already gone:
https://escapecollective.com/how-komoot-lost-its-way/
(paywalled, but I think it's the definitive aftermath writeup, as opposed to all the older news that stop at speculating about layoffs that had not happened yet)
by usrusr
4/24/2025 at 9:39:22 PM
Was there something specific at Komoot you’re referring to? Did I miss something in the article or the news cycle in general?by djhn
4/24/2025 at 8:55:42 PM
Anecdotally, a bad employer turns into a good employer only after a death.by ludicrousdispla
4/25/2025 at 1:19:06 PM
It's more that big companies spend a ton of money hiring HR and developing process to ensure they regress to the mean whereas small ones can't afford or don't yet need that overhead so they don't have that force acting upon them and can go whichever way.by potato3732842
4/24/2025 at 5:29:05 PM
The difference is that in a small company, it's the owner who is abusing you (or not). It's all down to the qualities of the person itself.In a large company, it happens regardless of the qualities of the people involve, because it's baked into the processes. Good-natured people can mitigate it to some extent, but they cannot prevent it.
by int_19h
4/24/2025 at 11:51:03 PM
Often enough good natured people become the teflon coating for bad processes.by PicassoCTs
4/25/2025 at 6:34:54 PM
What does the teflon coating metaphor mean?by stogot
4/24/2025 at 5:14:35 PM
You cannot take a week off who will cover your responsibilities?! Lol, that kind of small company.by ok_computer
4/24/2025 at 5:32:11 PM
Often comes with 'unlimited PTO' advertised during the interview/offer process :)by wubrr
4/24/2025 at 7:50:34 PM
Yep. They forget there are all sorts of "families" and some are very dysfunctional.by sarks_nz
4/24/2025 at 4:19:06 PM
The small and successful company (~100 people) my brother-in-law works at is currently self-destructing, specifically because the CEO is that exact kind of family-loyalty "father figure" wannabe.by fwip
4/24/2025 at 5:40:22 PM
Is it failing because he is being taken advantage of or is it failing because he is trying to take advantage of others?by lurk2
4/25/2025 at 3:22:21 AM
The latter - he valued loyalty over competency (ending up surrounding himself with yes men), and demanded too much of the competent folk until they burnt out and left.by fwip
4/24/2025 at 4:26:17 PM
That depends. A lot of them are. A lot of them have owners that actually treat you like family.Differentiating between the two based on signals during hiring is almost impossible, though.
by groby_b
4/24/2025 at 5:00:28 PM
But I don't want to be treated like family. In particular, I am not ready to have the same level of obligations towards my employers, even if these were reciprocated faithfully. I have my own family to which I'm always going to have a stronger loyalty than to any employer.A company as a group of close friends? Be my guest. A company that pretends that we have bonds of blood, or are married? Not for me (unless we're actually family, as in family business).
by nine_k
4/24/2025 at 5:07:57 PM
Differentiating between them is impossible until things go wrong. They can treat you as family 99% of the time, but when the options are: take a pay cut or fire some employees, in my experience everyone goes with the latter.by tidbits
4/24/2025 at 5:18:22 PM
>But in smaller groups and smaller communities, where you're actually working with people, loyalty and even affection can really make a difference in how satisfying your worklife is, how much security you can feel in your opportunities, etcI've been in IT for over 20 years, mostly working in small to mid-sized companies. Small companies will let you go as soon as they feel a pinch. every company is the same, no matter their size.
You're expected to give two weeks' notice, but they can let you go without any notice.
Corporate loyalty is the dumbest trick employers ever pulled.
by MangoCoffee
4/24/2025 at 5:27:48 PM
> You're expected to give two weeks' notice, but they can let you go without any notice.Luckily, this is not the case where I live. Both sides have the same amount of notice
by metters
4/24/2025 at 5:38:54 PM
Same here. And the usual amount is 2 months, not weeks. Of course it can be (and often is) shorter if both parties agree.That said, the real safety is in accumulated money you can live on when all goes south. I'd personally take bigger salary over longer notice any day of the week.
by bornfreddy
4/24/2025 at 4:23:37 PM
My parents told me to be loyal to people, not companies.People get me a job when I look for one.
by jjmarr
4/24/2025 at 5:01:58 PM
Exactly what I always proclaim. I'm loyal to my team, to my coworkers, the living beings, not to the org chart that pulled them together.(Another thing I keep repeating is "You are not your job".)
by nine_k
4/24/2025 at 4:51:02 PM
I agree. Tenures may be short but careers are long and tech is (surprisingly) small. Credibility builds trust and trust between people is ultimately what business run on. "Do right be people" is a good strategy.by emgeee
4/24/2025 at 6:15:38 PM
Only in moderation. When employees start forming cells inside the org things quickly become toxic.by usrusr
4/24/2025 at 11:44:29 PM
conversely you don't quit bad companies, you quit bad managersby htrp
4/24/2025 at 4:43:34 PM
Good advice. The company gets your loyalty as a side-effectby espinchi
4/24/2025 at 8:57:41 PM
Exactly- and if they screw the people I'm loyal to, FAFO.One of the most satisfying things that's ever happened to me in my career is when, after I turned in my notice to my last job, less than a week later my boss gave his.
by xp84
4/24/2025 at 4:05:16 PM
The term loyalty is dangerous for an employee.Having seen companies of all sizes lay people off for the exact same reason - Returns did not match expectations - my personal perspective is to treat all employers the same.
No company with a balance sheet is loyal to employees. Keeping that idea in mind, and thus on an equal perspective, is healthy for both sides. "It's just business" is good advice and not just in movies.
by kermatt
4/24/2025 at 5:55:27 PM
I applied to a job in the 'Who's Hiring' thread this month.Had an interview. I'm a professional good at my craft, with tenure at hard positions.
I get hit with "we don't just want someone who checks in does work and leaves, 9 to 5". Like, are you wanting 60h/week and pay 40h/week? Or is this you're not wanting a slacker?
Or better yet, since you want skin in the game on my side, what's my equity as a partner?
My understanding is that I shop up and work well, and you pay me. And I'm in an at-will employment state, so it really is 1 day at a time.
Loyalty is bought at 1 day increments, since that is all the loyalty is afforded to me.
However, I will definitely lie, since no recruiter or HR wants to admit that their candidate is here because you pay. Its the verboten secret everyone dances around.
by mystraline
4/25/2025 at 5:51:12 PM
> "we don't just want someone who checks in does work and leaves, 9 to 5"I do. I want people to work a normal day. The alternative is they run into a wall of fatigue at the worst times, and call out sick.
I can plan a project around five 8 hour days a week. I can't plan around 60+ hours one week, and (unknown) hours some future week.
by kermatt
4/24/2025 at 6:11:35 PM
That sounds disgusting. Thank you for sharing that. Why don't they just advertise "Over-time expected and over-time compensation provided"?by ivape
4/24/2025 at 6:46:13 PM
Most likely because they expect overtime but won't compensate overtimeSo they are hoping to hire someone who will do it for free
by bluefirebrand
4/24/2025 at 7:38:34 PM
I couldn't get an exact good gauge on what their aim was.They made a point at 'work-life balance', decent but not great PTO. Pay was from 150-300, but glassdoor shows around 175.
It did have on call, but my profession does.
But the conversation was weird - what were they REALLY asking for that they couldn't outright say? Were they trying to ask if I have a family and obligations? Pregnant wife? Willingness to slave away hours above my negotiated pay?
It definitely felt strange. This is a job, not a calling. And they would 'transact' (read: fire) me just as fast if the economics didn't pan out.
by mystraline
4/24/2025 at 8:23:39 PM
I've worked at large companies (a Fortune 50 for ten years), and small (current employer is six people), and in my experience the small businesses treated employees the worst. At a large organization, there is a sense of orderliness and process that sometimes works in the employee's favor; your "loyalty" is on the record and categorizes you in a specific way. In a "family"-size company, it's often the case that only family members, family friends, or family co-religionists are of value to the owners; this truth then emerges at the worst time for you.by Exoristos
4/25/2025 at 4:32:29 AM
> only family members, family friends, or family co-religionists are of value to the owners;Every strength is also a weakness. Small groups like that can also very effective because their trust runs deeper than work. The real lie is that thousands of unrelated strangers trying to get paid will have each other’s interests at heart.
by grandempire
4/24/2025 at 5:27:27 PM
This difference is because smaller organizations are less of an entity in their own right, and more of an actual group of people doing things together (even if legally the company might still be a separate entity).As organizations grow, they become more than a mere sum of its parts. It seems to be an emergent phenomenon driven by complexity - as humans interact, this very interaction creates something resembling an entity in its own right past a certain scale, with its own agenda (distinct from individual agendas of its constituent humans) and drive for self-preservation as a whole - the egregore that you mentioned. My pet theory is that this starts to happen when you scale beyond the Dunbar number, but the effect is only obvious at scales where most members of the organization are faceless strangers to each other.
Either way, this emergent entity is decidedly amoral.
by int_19h
4/24/2025 at 5:05:39 PM
That loyalty and affection your are feeling is only going one way. I've worked for small and large places. Work is always transactional. The day the CFO at your 10 person startup that "feels like a family" gets some pressure from investors to cut costs, well, your loyalty does not factor into the decision making.by jacobsenscott
4/24/2025 at 3:43:05 PM
I agree in parts. Loyalty and corresponding benefits are a local optima. But when the macro is controlled and influenced by external (to the local) forces, and these forces have power, loyalty means nothing in terms of security. But you will still have good relationships with people and new opportunities may surface as a benefit.But loyalty to a company is complete, utter BS.
by throwaway7783
4/24/2025 at 3:58:34 PM
There are good and bad companies. How you are treated is how you gauge it, and good companies do deserve "working" loyality.This is different from personal loyalty.
It's a little like politeness. Social grace. Don't demean yourself of course, but treating entities which treat you well reciprocally is valid and even moral.
by bbarnett
4/24/2025 at 4:51:00 PM
A good or a bad company is really defined by people you work with - your team. Countless conversations in other forums where you'll see radically opposite opinions about the the "company" from different employees. It all boils down to the local working context. Companies are companies - maximizing profit is their primary goal (at least in the US). There may certainly be some exceptions. Entities don't treat a person in any way. It is the people in the entities that treat you well or not. Entities are impersonal.If the CEO, who is 6 levels removed from me makes a decision to cut an entire department, it is hard to see how "company" loyalty makes sense. As far as I'm concerned, the CEO is an external force.
Social grace, treating people well who treat you well - I agree with all that. But that is not loyalty. It is simply transactional reciprocality. If you are calling that "working loyalty", fine, we are on the same page.
by throwaway7783
4/24/2025 at 4:48:31 PM
The larger the company, and the more they're ballooned out with abstract drones chomping on abstract work itemsI was actually thinking about this the other day. When an employer implements an "aloof" layer between the work done and the bottom line, the employer and employee don't get to bond. You and your company should be on the same page when it comes to generating business and on the same page when it comes to concerns. Shipmates, for real. With layers of management of all varieties (middle management, project management, developer management (this is tricky because the Dev Lead becomes your only connection to the bottom line)), the "aloofness" leads to unfulfilled lives. That's when the employee doesn't feel fulfilled or understands who they are on the ship. And it follows that the captain(s) of the ship (leadership) are unfulfilled because they are no longer in love with the crew (can easily fire, hire, layoff, disconnect from the employees lives). I haven't fully thought this thought out so I will probably expand on it as time goes on, but this is my line of thinking at the moment.
It's a love issue due to a lack of direct bonding (and no, company social gatherings and "fun" is not the bonding I am talking about. I am talking about taking on Moby Dick together). The love is indirectly routed through these other layers until it's been fully diluted and misunderstood, unfulfilling to all. Everyone must love the ship, the crew, the captain, the ocean, and the whale they are hunting.
by ivape
4/24/2025 at 5:17:45 PM
You might want to read Moby Dick all the way to the end.by jacobsenscott
4/24/2025 at 5:19:34 PM
Right. Well, that's how it goes. I mostly wanted to capture a shared pursuit. Take Elon, he's obsessed now. Love is not easy or perfect between captain and crew. Sometimes the crew needs to step in.by ivape
4/24/2025 at 4:39:33 PM
IME smaller communities make firing/layoffs different but not less likely. Startups will lay people off for money regardless of any level of loyalty regardless of size. In fact it is even more disappointing to work very very closely with people who would lay you off overnight if their investor decides they want heads to roll.by KittenInABox
4/24/2025 at 4:22:16 PM
tbh that feels completely backwards. In large orgs, you are a number and transparently so. People come and go, processes are set up that assume attrition.In a smaller shop, there's less flex overall for departures and more incentive to abuse the personal relationships built.
You are right that loyalty changes depending on org chart, but it's how senior you are. Senior execs have more vested in the company, both in their career and stock options.
by jorblumesea
4/24/2025 at 2:39:57 PM
All loyalty is a risk. Even loyalty to your spouse is a risk. Just like how all love and human trust is a risk.To feel human you have to take these emotional risks. You shouldn’t bet your life that a mega-corp has absolute and utter loyalty to you. You shouldn’t bet your entire life that your spouse has absolute loyalty to you (we have divorce, pre-nups, and post-nups for a reason). But it strikes me as a pretty soulless existence to have no loyalty to your place of work, in the same way it would be a pretty soulless existence to never form loyalty with the people in your life, even if it isn’t absolute loyalty.
by HEmanZ
4/24/2025 at 2:43:46 PM
Things don't deserve loyalty. Your company is a "thing".People - people can absolutely deserve loyalty, and those people can be managers, coworkers, spouses, family, etc.
But don't mix the two up in your mind.
by horsawlarway
4/24/2025 at 3:03:07 PM
>Things don't deserve loyalty. Your company is a "thing".A country is a thing and loyalty to it is called "patriotism". A sports-team or TV show or band is a thing, loyalty to it is called "fandom". Loyalty to an idea or philosophy is called "being principled" or "idealism". Do you believe that things don't deserve loyalty, such that all of these are errors? Or do these examples not capture the sense of your statement?
by simpaticoder
4/24/2025 at 3:23:32 PM
Yes, all of these things do not deserve loyalty. There are values i hold dear, if a philosophy or state holds on to the same values, i support them. If they turn away from them, no reason to be loyal.by ashoeafoot
4/24/2025 at 4:10:36 PM
Strictly speaking, a philosophy can't turn away from values. A person can, but philosophy itself is, to a first order approximation, an immutable bundle of values.Of course this naive view quickly falls apart when interpretation comes into play, as it always must. In the extreme, one may assert that "philosophy" is encoded in the behavior of it's adherents, and these behaviors may have little or nothing to do with the "canonical" representation of the philosophy as immutable text. Or more precisely the behavior and words can be profoundly decoupled. Many examples of this decoupling occurs to your thought (and mine). So when you say that a philosophy can "turn away" from values, in this sense that is true.
I prefer to think of philosophies as a kind of Platonic ideal, which are then subject to all the foibles of the humans who associate themselves to them. There are some subtle problems with this view, which I'd rather not confront.
by simpaticoder
4/24/2025 at 4:55:04 PM
Strictly speaking you are right. But words change meanings and philosophies get hijacked, deformed and loaded with barely affiliated concepts or movements.So the idea as it was might be a value, but what the word means may decay into something frankenstein wouldn't recognise as his handy work .
by ashoeafoot
4/24/2025 at 3:34:10 PM
Are you perhaps confusing loyalty to an incumbent regime with loyalty to a nation or people?by lo_zamoyski
4/24/2025 at 3:44:16 PM
A nation can change, a people can become corrupt, the values stay and if for example a democracy steered by corrupted peoples betrays itself, a democrat with values can just soldier on without getting into any loyalty conflict. A sadness for what has fallen may linger.by ashoeafoot
4/24/2025 at 5:39:34 PM
Not really. Have you ever heard a saying, "right or wrong, my country"? That's exactly the kind of toxic stuff that loyalty to entities leads to.by int_19h
4/25/2025 at 1:11:29 PM
Your use of language is imprecise. What exactly is meant by "my country" here?We have the state; we have the ruling regime; we have the society in question. Who is this "country" that is right or wrong exactly?
If the state, then in the abstract, it is authority without particular directive. So it can't be that.
If the ruling regime, then it can undermine its own authority by demanding people commit evil deeds. But it is not betrayal to refuse to commit the evil deeds it demands. It is the ruling regime who betrays the society it rules by demanding evil. Remember: lex iniusta non est lex.
If society, then we're talking about an aggregate and therefore mob "rule". But who cares what the mob thinks? The mob has no authority.
Betrayal and loyalty can only be measured in relation to the objective good. I agree with you that "my country, right or wrong" might suggest something very evil, but to reject the suggested relativistic understanding of loyalty is not betrayal. You could interpret it differently: I am loyal to the good of my country, regardless of whether my country is in the right or in the wrong. And the good of my country might involve opposing an evil regime or standing up to the mob. That's true loyalty. Obedience to evil is false obedience and true betrayal.
by lo_zamoyski
4/24/2025 at 3:42:38 PM
A nation? Or a economic zone?A people? Or a population of foreign guest workers?
by willcipriano
4/24/2025 at 9:35:25 PM
[dead]by h0nkikong
4/24/2025 at 3:09:50 PM
That's right, they do not deserve loyalty. All of these things hijack our loyalty to people in the name of some higher-order goal. Sports team and TV show loyalty is there to get us to consume more. Loyalty to a country gets us to be reliable cogs in someone else's grand project. Loyalty to a philosophy gets us to be a cult leader's acolyte.Skip the substitute and go for the real thing: loyalty to people. You can still join grand projects, but do it consciously rather than on instinct.
by riehwvfbk
4/24/2025 at 7:28:54 PM
>Sports team and TV show loyalty is there to get us to consume more.A less cynical take: there seems to be some research that following sports fosters greater social connectivity and well-being. It may just be that we're hardwired to be tribal. From that context, sports seems to be a relatively benign way to tap into that.
by bumby
4/24/2025 at 3:43:44 PM
Your examples are bizarre (sports teams are a matter of petty entertainment, not proper objects of loyalty). Philosophy isn't an object of loyalty either.However, you should acquaint yourself with the principle of subsidiarity. Loyalty, duty, and love radiate outward from those who are owed the most diminishing to those who are owed the least (spouses, then children, then parents, etc., all the way through extended family and then community and nation and finally the human race). The loyalty is to the objective good. How that is expressed will be modified by contingent factors particular to a given person's situation.
by lo_zamoyski
4/24/2025 at 4:24:24 PM
They didn’t come up with the sports team example, it comes from the comment they are responding to.by bee_rider
4/25/2025 at 6:03:13 AM
Hey, you can do a real-world test to see if I'm right or you are right. Go to a football match (soccer for Americans), find a group of hooligans and tell them their team sucks. If you are right and it's just petty entertainment - you'll be just fine.by riehwvfbk
4/24/2025 at 3:17:17 PM
"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I would have the guts to betray my country."--EM Forster, "What I Believe"
by senderista
4/24/2025 at 3:38:06 PM
The problem here is that Forster is relativising the good.I am not betraying my country by refusing to follow laws or decrees that require that I engage in intrinsically evil deeds. I am not loyal to my friend if I do evil things he asks me to do.
Our loyalty is to the objective good of our country and our friend. Otherwise, there is no such thing as loyalty.
by lo_zamoyski
4/24/2025 at 5:44:27 PM
There are situations when you genuinely must betray your country to protect your friend, or vice versa.For example, if your country is a multiethnic empire that is unsustainable as a single entity without compulsion and forced assimilation, and your friend happens to be an ethnic minority in it.
by int_19h
4/25/2025 at 12:52:25 PM
Please reread what I wrote.What does it mean to betray someone? If a friend intends to murder someone and asks you to keep that secret, would telling the police be a betrayal? Would keeping it secret be an expression of loyalty?
Loyalty and betrayal cannot be understood in purely subjective terms. It must always be grounded in the objective good.
In your example, you haven't provided enough information to judge how exactly you would are betraying your country. However, if your country is doing evil things and you defend a friend from those evil things, then you aren't betraying your country. The government in question is betraying your country.
by lo_zamoyski
4/25/2025 at 4:43:20 AM
"I must admit that when my friend first told me of his plan I was sorely tempted drop off an anonymous tip recommending that the Archduke postpone his trip to Sarajevo..."by musicale
4/24/2025 at 3:26:48 PM
> A country is a thing and loyalty to it is called "patriotism".That sort of loyalty is not quite the same: protecting your own to indirectly protect yourself. People often see their “external tribes” as an extension of their self much likely they do family/friends, rather than them being part of it like a company. I am a Spillett. I am a Yorkshireman, I am English, I am UKian, I am European, I work for TL. Notice the difference in language in that last one.
This is part of why some get so offended when you poke fun at their town/county/country: if they see it as an extension of their identity more than just somewhere they live then your disrespect is a personal attack. They would not likely defend their employer nearly as passionately.
by dspillett
4/24/2025 at 5:42:49 PM
> That sort of loyalty is not quite the same: protecting your own to indirectly protect yourself.I would argue that this is a tit-for-tat, and as such, not really an example of loyalty per se. Loyalty would be protecting your country even when it doesn't actually benefit you and yours in any tangible way. And it has all the same problems as corporate loyalty, really.
by int_19h
4/24/2025 at 7:24:17 PM
>protecting your country even when it doesn't actually benefit youPerhaps this needs some nuance. It seems like duty has some relevance here. Military service may not actually benefit someone directly, and it could easily be a detriment at the individual level. But societies struggle to operate effectively for very long when everyone takes an individualistic transactional mindset. At some point, it becomes a collective action problem that needs to find a balance between serving a sense of duty to society as a whole and society not taking advantage of such sentiments.
by bumby
4/24/2025 at 4:01:53 PM
notice the mirage version of this with some companies - one can be a "googler" or so on, and companies try to encourage this identificationby nemomarx
4/24/2025 at 3:04:21 PM
Perhaps it should be refined to say that "profit-oriented things" that view existence as purely transactions don't deserve loyalty.by Apocryphon
4/24/2025 at 3:12:45 PM
Sports franchises are the ultimate trick, in that they are profit-oriented, yet they somehow play on our tribal nature and fool us into forgetting about the profit part.I guess you could argue the same for a church.
by OpenDrapery
4/24/2025 at 3:18:01 PM
Thanks to the financialization of everything, perhaps the same can be said of colleges and universities!by Apocryphon
4/25/2025 at 1:53:45 PM
Patriotism is as we know a loyalty to real estate. Borders do change all the time if history is viewed from few steps back. In fact, everything changes - languages, culture, traditions and so on.Where I come from in Europe - they say we have proud history going back some 1500 years. Well before that, there were other tribes, we are same type of immigrants as current waves. We either mingled with them, killed them or drove them away. I am pretty sure genetic tracing would favor the mingling for the most part.
What makes more sense is really what all others say - pick up a specific set of people, philosophy, moral imperative etc. and be loyal to them. Higher concepts muddy the waters with slippery slopes and are unnecessary, just opening surfaces to manipulation.
by jajko
4/24/2025 at 3:22:36 PM
Patriotism is mostly just propaganda to make people willing to kill and die for some old cynical geezers' delusions of grandeur. The guy said it right, countries don't deserve loyalty either. Lots of Russians are figuring this out firsthand these days.by moffkalast
4/24/2025 at 3:40:48 PM
What about your boss, then.by amelius
4/24/2025 at 3:43:19 PM
It depends. I posted why in more detail in a different reply to this thread.by eitally
4/24/2025 at 5:58:15 PM
not that binary lmaoby Bnjoroge
4/24/2025 at 2:49:20 PM
Unfortunately all managers focus on push rank, so why loyalty to them?by BOOSTERHIDROGEN
4/24/2025 at 2:53:30 PM
This is an overly broad generalisation - there are many cases of managers that do their best to primarily look after those under them, not just focus on getting higher up.by 13hunteo
4/24/2025 at 2:50:04 PM
This soullessness wasn't always the case. Prior to the cost-cutting minmaxing of Jack Welch's industries-influential tenure as CEO of General Electric, corporate America wasn't quite so brazen about layoffs, because they weren't viewed as a way to maximize shareholder returns- and shareholder value wasn't viewed as the only priority for corporate leaders. (He also introduced what would later become stack ranking at Microsoft and other tech companies.)On the other side, certainly a fluid labor market such as tech was a couple of years ago would foster a lack of loyalty, as employees hop from employer to employer for rapid career growth.
None of this necessarily contradicts with your point. It's just labor relations don't exist in a vacuum. Sometimes a lot needs to be done to earn trust in a low-trust cultural environment.
by Apocryphon
4/24/2025 at 4:22:01 PM
But also there were actual benefits to loyalty that don’t exist anymore. Labor union participation was huge in the post WWII, pre-Welch time frame. They used that leverage to negotiate benefits, many of which rewarded loyalty. Pension plans vs 401ks, significant pay raises based on seniority, clear paths to promotion, job security prioritizing senior workers, etc. Those things permeated through job markets and companies without unions as well, given the labor force competition. People were loyal because they had real tangible compensation and benefits for it.I think another shift around Welch was that companies used to focus more on long term value, which would result in stock price increases in the long term, even if not in any given short term. That if a company was healthy and valuable, one of the many benefits would be rising stocks. The shift to focus on short term stock increases as almost the only goal, means companies will pull the copper piping out the walls and destroy the house if it means a juicy bump in the Q3 earnings call.
by 542354234235
4/24/2025 at 6:18:41 PM
Yeah, there's certainly been a steady erosion of labor benefits in the postwar. To dial back my own great man theory a bit, Welch was active in the '80s when Reagan and Thatcher were in power, and those "great men" were also operating in a milieu where the Chicago Boys were very influential, and they had the political mandate to institute management-favoring policies thanks to economic crises of the '70s.by Apocryphon
4/24/2025 at 3:04:20 PM
I think I agree with both perspectives. And it makes me realize that in the past when I've tried to draw hardcore no-loyalty / emotional attachment boundaries teammates / employers pick up in the vibe and it slowly becomes mildly but chronically toxic.It's 100% an emergence scam behavior of corporate entities to trick their employees into developing loyalty and tricking managers / founders etc into thinking its not just a way of scamming lower-end employees imo... I never got the feeling that managers were consciously trying to trick us into developing loyalty, felt more like they were then ones drinking the most coolaid on it...
Also agree with the base human need to feel at least some loyalty in any relationship to feel like it's healthy.
I think my hack has been to develop loyalty to people on my team laterally. Seems to work but sometimes leadership / management still seems like they catch a whiff that I dont have a deep emotional need to respond to their frantic 8pm or Sunday afternoon Teams messages...
But if they fire me for not being loyal who cares, the economies doing great right?
by pkdpic
4/24/2025 at 2:58:49 PM
In addition to what others have said about loyalty to the people who happen to work at a company, which I agree with entirely:I think it's good to have admiration for the company (or any organization) you work for. If you can't find anything you admire, it might be better to find another place to work where you can.
This implies having the privilege of having options. For me, it's probably the primary reason I try to direct my career toward having skills or connections that give me options.
by sanderjd
4/24/2025 at 3:40:36 PM
Being able to take pride in your work also helps a lot. In academia, my work may not be the most well compensated (it's perfectly reasonable for the area but I'm not going to be retiring early), but it is modern software that meaningfully helps others at my institution and doesn't actively make society worse.by tart-lemonade
4/24/2025 at 6:16:30 PM
Yes. This is very closely tied into the ability to admire the organization, at least for me. It's very hard for me to take pride in my work for an organization I think is bad.by sanderjd
4/24/2025 at 4:00:03 PM
>You shouldn’t bet your life that a mega-corp has absolute and utter loyalty to you.But your mega corp doesn't have loyalty to you. They have loyalty to their shareholders, and you are a means to that end. The shareholders are the spouse, and you are just the person they paid to make the yearly birthday present. If a little flattery gets them a better price, then they flatter. If their spouse's interests change, you'll never see them again.
by 542354234235
4/24/2025 at 5:07:26 PM
> you are just the person they paid to make the yearly birthday presentEqually, if you presenting yourself well and negotiating well gets you a better wage to make that birthday present, then you should do those things. It's a two-way street.
by robertlagrant
4/25/2025 at 5:27:09 PM
But that isn’t loyalty, that is just transactional, which is exactly what people are advocating for when dealing with a corporate employer.> loyalty for a company is concept to make you work harder without asking anything in return. And the moment the company shifts focus and you are out of it, then suddenly you understand that this loyalty wasn't kind of a credits account which you've been saving all this time. It's simply nothing.
This is what you were responding to, which is not transactional. You are loyal to your spouse (to a point) because you trust her to have your best interests in mind and be aligned in the common goal of improving life for you both. A corporation’s spouse is the shareholder and has their best interests in mind, not the employee.
by 542354234235
4/24/2025 at 2:45:09 PM
i think we can draw a distinction between loyalty to the company, either as an abstract entity or its concrete leadership, and human relationships with people who may also be employed there. there are two companies here, one has a stock ticker and the other is an organic collection of people. i dont owe either of them loyalty, but the second company might easily earn it.by convolvatron
4/24/2025 at 10:40:31 PM
Your soulful loyalty should be all for personal and family relationships like a spouse, zero for any corporation.Employer employee relationships are completely financial. Almost legally required to be that way on the employer’s side.
by jimbokun
4/24/2025 at 3:00:42 PM
Yes, all loyalty is a risk. But the expectation in interpersonal relationships is typically that if you are loyal to someone they are loyal to you. There are literal rituals for people to swear that to each other in front of witnesses. Most people also intuitively understand that an unilateral breach of loyalty is a legitimate reason for ending this agreement.With hypercapitalist corporations loyalty is a one-way street. The employee is expected to be loyal, while corporations drop them casually if it benefits them. Loyalty is realized when one of the sides endure some downsides in thr expectations that these will be resolved in the long term. So if you dump someone the minute that downside appears, you aren't and never have been loyal.
by atoav
4/24/2025 at 3:39:28 PM
Loyalty is worth it if you can reasonably assume it will be repaid in kind. Assuming you didn't make a huge mistake in partner selection, that assumption is valid for your spouse. It emphatically does NOT hold for your employer, who will drop you the instant you become a problem. Therefore, it makes no sense to be loyal to your employer beyond the bare minimum.by bitwize
4/24/2025 at 3:27:08 PM
It's not about feelings. It's about making human life possible, as we are social animals. We develop through relationships.Loyalty is a commitment to the objective good of the other, of skin in the game. Loyalty is hierarchical and the particular variety and its entailed commitments depends on the particular nature of the relationship.
In a hyperindividualist liberal society, the presumption is basically Hobbesian; life is taken to be intrinsically and thoroughly adversarial and exploitative, and relationships are taken to be basically instrumental and transactional. (This even informs scientific interpretation, as science is downstream of culture.) Society is taken to be intrinsically a matter of "contract" or a kind of Mexican standoff. Loyalty is a quaint and anachronistic notion, a passing emotion that expires the moment the landscape of opportunities shifts. Provisional and temporary.
by lo_zamoyski
4/24/2025 at 3:58:42 PM
Loyalty develops naturally in a good relationship. It's a fruit to be cherished, but it's not a goal that you should pursue for its own sake.There's no point in asking first, whether employers should be loyal to their employers or vice versa. The important question is whether they are good to one another. If they are, you might also find loyalty among them, but that's not where the focus should be.
Someone who gets obsessed with loyalty too much, I think, is likely to have sinister intentions. They probably want you to be loyal to them but don't plan on being good to you.
by kijin
4/25/2025 at 2:03:41 PM
We must be more precise here. You should be wary of allowing a hermeneutic of suspicion to take you from naivete to outright cynicism. There is a middle path.If we narrow the scope to employment, there is a variety of loyalty to the common good of the company at work, in due proportion and priority, when you join the company. Each employee is bound in this manner, including the guy deciding your salary or your termination. Otherwise, what are you doing there?
Now, loyalty isn't stupidity. Perhaps this is what people associate with the word when they hear it. They perhaps imagine some poor, gullible, childish pushover. It should be obvious that this is stupid. No, loyalty to a company is a commitment to the common good of the company within the scope of your responsibilities. That's it.
Now, given the nature of at-will employment, that commitment is contingent on actual employment. When you leave the company, your commitment ends. But while you work at that company, you must be committed to the common good of that company. Again, why else are you there? The nature of employment makes this a kind of elective loyalty of utility.
The fact that employers might try to manipulate employees emotionally by misusing and abusing words like "loyalty" in order to exploit them is a different matter. In that case, the employer is being disloyal to the company and its employees. How you should respond to that kind of disloyalty is contingent on the particulars of that disloyalty and the particulars of your personal circumstances.
We have got to get away from this relativist, subjectivist battle of wills. What matters is the objective good.
> Loyalty develops naturally in a good relationship. It's a fruit to be cherished, but it's not a goal that you should pursue for its own sake.
I'm not sure what to make of this. The scope is also too broad to say anything useful here. In friendship, loyalty is a prerequisite for it being a good relationship. Loyalty to a friend is commitment to their objective good. A disloyal friend harms the friendship. How can there be friendship without loyalty?
I suppose a good question to ask is: what does it mean to be disloyal? It is every okay to be disloyal? Disloyalty presumes loyalty is normative and owed. But loyalty is not always normative, because it would be a category mistake. If I work for Boeing, I am not being disloyal toward Airbus, because I have no commitments toward Airbus. But I would be disloyal to Boeing if I were to illicitly funnel work done at Boeing to Airbus, harming Boeing. In the context of friendship, loyalty may grow with the friendship, but being more loyal to friend A than to friend B doesn't mean I am disloyal to B. A smaller glass full of water simply holds less water, but it is no less full than a larger glass full of water. It is simply that there is an order and priority of loyalty in due proportion with the nature of the friendship. I owe more loyalty to my family than I do to my community, but it's not an either/or proposition. It simply means that my commitment to and prioritization of the good of my family is higher (this relates to the ordo amoris that made a splash in the news recently).
by lo_zamoyski
4/24/2025 at 2:58:18 PM
You can think of mutual-loyalty as an extended transaction, if you prefer. If, in exchange for you not planning on leaving the company, the company actively does its best to treat you well and preserve your job long-term, that can be a good trade-off.The mutuality is important. You absolutely shouldn't think of yourself as "loyal" to a company that won't stick up for you. (And many companies won't, to be clear. If asked to choose between cutting executive salaries by 2% and firing you, most companies won't think too hard about that. You shouldn't be loyal to those ones.)
by kemayo
4/24/2025 at 3:28:59 PM
I like the thought of this but how does it work in practice?The company treats me well and preserves my job while I'm planning not to leave. Until they don't. Because once the transaction is more trouble than its worth - either financially, or politically, or interpersonally - I'm gone. But if I am planning to leave, the company doesn't know that and treats me the exact same way.
by pc86
4/24/2025 at 4:08:02 PM
It’s definitely not a transaction. Every time I’ve seen push come to shove, companies prioritize the folks they see as critical to their company’s success with loyalty not even being a small factor. And if it’s a moderate to large sized company, many of the decisions will be made by a consulting firm with 0 context (or care) for loyalty.by harles
4/24/2025 at 4:49:59 PM
> the company actively does its best to treat you well and preserve your job long-termLike fuck they do. They make a cost-benefit guess about proactive moves to reduce attrition, and the amount they do is tied the cost of replacement for the role in question.
by dogleash
4/24/2025 at 4:51:10 PM
There's a reason I put "if" before that.by kemayo
4/24/2025 at 6:41:19 PM
If your loyalty is to your team / admin people, it could be quite profitable.Plenty of examples of people (me included) that when their superior changes projects or leaves the company etc, they know and trust you and they want to move you with them.
I for example managed to switch from a dull team that drove me to almost the verge of quitting to a very exciting skunkworks team that I had a blast working in for almost 2 years, let alone doubling my compensation.
That happened because I was loyal to my SEM, in the sense of giving extra time if he was on the line, giving honest feedback and generally trying to make them “succeed”, the moment a risky and important project was on the table at the org he was like - “let’s organize a crack team” and invited me on board … and it was such a cool experience.
“The company” itself doesn’t “feel” anything towards the people working for it, it’s the people behind it that are influenced by such things.
The best orgs would have those personal loyalties also align with the orgs mission, but they are still personal - given from humans to humans.
Of course there is a fine line in “being a good resource” and “sucking up”, but good managers usually know the difference.
by seer
4/24/2025 at 3:42:47 PM
This isn't universally true (and I'm saying this as someone who's been laid off three times in my career). When searching for a job, it's important to perform due diligence to ascertain whether the company is on solid footing, their strategy makes sense, and your role will be valued. But once you're there, who your boss is, including how well they mentor you and what their political clout is within the business, can absolutely make "loyalty" worthwhile because the ROI can be career acceleration (in terms of compensation, job title and also breadth/depth of experience/exposure) that goes far beyond just the direct pay when you consider the overall value.by eitally
4/24/2025 at 6:24:00 PM
I similarly got this lesson early in my career. One of my first jobs. I was young and excited to be at a startup. Learning a ton. I poured hours into that job. Then, one day we were pulled onto a call, told they couldn't afford us any more, and fired on the spot. We were immediately locked out of everything and that was that.It was shocking at the time. To young me, it was a big "....oh" kind of realization about what kind of relationship you can/should have with any kind of business.
Now, I'm here cause you pay me. I don't keep stuff at my desk or decorate 'my' space. I show up, do the job, and leave. Once I close this laptop, work is dead to me until the next day.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't occasionally work more than 40hr/week, but most of the time my work/life balance is fantastic by choice.
by goostavos
4/24/2025 at 2:14:54 PM
Employer? No. But I've seen some very smart coworkers value and reward deep, specialized knowledge that is built through working in the same area (of not just tech but also business application) for many years.by Scene_Cast2
4/24/2025 at 2:45:24 PM
This is the trap I fall into. I have had so many amazing colleagues and I want to do right by them. Sometimes it’s been trench camaraderie, sometimes just really great working relationships, but I almost always feel like I owe it to my fellow employees to work hard, do well for the company, etc.It’s taken me a long time to learn, but that form of loyalty doesn’t equate to employer loyalty.
by teucris
4/24/2025 at 2:28:41 PM
Doesn't really matter how much your coworkers value you when your employer suddenly decides tomorrow that they've decided to change focus for the 5th time this month and it's your department getting cut this time.by xingped
4/24/2025 at 8:06:22 PM
After a layoff is when your reputation matters most, no?by jayd16
4/24/2025 at 2:31:19 PM
That's experience, which has nothing to do with loyalty.by thunky
4/24/2025 at 5:27:26 PM
It's camaraderie. Some of the best professional relationships I've had were in terribly run organizations with like-minded peers. I don't know why, but strong bonds form in those situations (and taken to the extreme in the military).by hylaride
4/24/2025 at 6:51:22 PM
> It's camaraderieOk, but it's not loyalty. At least I hope not...
Those like-minded peers you've had owed you no nothing. You had a fair, respectful, professional relationship with them that was self sustaining and therefore did not demand allegience in either direction.
If a better opportunity came along for them I would hope that you would want them to take it despite your history and the camaraderie you've established with them. And same for you.
by thunky
4/24/2025 at 7:05:31 PM
> If a better opportunity came along for them I would hope that you would want them to take it despite your history and the camaraderie you've established with them. And same for you.To me, it was not about people leaving you behind, but calling you up when opportunities arise (though I didn't feel that way when it first happened at the beginning of my career). Camaraderie doesn't mean you owe people or are owed anything, but is a mutual level of trust and support.
Of the 6 jobs I've had over the past 20 years, 5 of them have been from former colleagues reaching out.
by hylaride
4/24/2025 at 8:16:56 PM
I think we're agreeing. I just don't think loyalty (necessarily) implies mutual trust and support.I've been accused of being disloyal simply for being honest and not agreeing with someone else's stance. So in my gut, loyalty implies abondoning your principals or compromising yourself in some way in order to gain or keep favor with someone else.
I suppose others may think of loyalty as a positive trait. But in the context of of a profressional relationship, I can't see any reason we should want loyalty to play a role.
by thunky
4/24/2025 at 2:41:27 PM
There is some coorelation. To get the experience, you need to appear be a team player and show some signs of loyality to continue obtaining the experience. Different employers have different checks on this, often ego based.by mycall
4/24/2025 at 6:56:47 PM
> you need to [...] show some signs of loyality to continue obtaining the experienceThat may be true for a bad employer but no good employer should ever demand loyalty in exchange for continued employment.
If you hire a landscaping service to mow your lawn every week do you demand loyalty from them? I hope not, because that would be ridiculous.
by thunky
4/24/2025 at 3:09:08 PM
I think that loyalty counts when the decision-makers are more localized. People who show up and demonstrate that they care will generally get the bonuses from their direct managers or higher up managers who recognize the effort (because it happened to cross their path somehow). But these monetary decisions are more and more just calculations on a spreadsheet - here's your 3% annual pay increase and we can allocate 10% of the workforce gets a larger raise to ensure 80% retention. When the layoffs come it has nothing to do loyalty and often has little to do with competence in the role. Hopefully the guy with the spreadsheet is considering whether they can continue to run the business with certain individuals or not, but I don't think it ever gets that granular. This is the MBA era of business.by TheGRS
4/24/2025 at 2:13:28 PM
Agree 100% but for my own mental health I like to pretend loyalty does exist day to day but give myself a wake up call if that credit account as you call it is getting too bigby StormChaser_5
4/24/2025 at 3:27:21 PM
Loyalty to a company is broken because companies are typically too big.Loyalty to people still has significant returns, _especially_ when you are specific with what you want and take control of how your interactions should work.
When I started my own business, a few-times-former employer became a client. The way they interacted with me changed dramatically overnight -- the CxOs treated me as a peer versus an employee. Was very strange to experience and a very welcome change.
by tomrod
4/24/2025 at 3:06:56 PM
At least to me, loyalty _is_ the benefit. I can't conscience working for someone I hate or someone who I don't feel like I want to help succeed. I've definitely quit jobs before just because the senior leader in my reporting chain was replaced with some smarmy windbag I didn't believe in.That's not to say it's _much_ of a benefit, but if the only thing a job gives me is a market-rational amount of dollars and health benefits in exchange for life-hours, the invisible hand ensures I can find that virtually anywhere.
by academia_hack
4/24/2025 at 5:43:29 PM
There's more to loyalty than imagining it as a credits account.The baseline is absence of disloyalty, which does not mean "stay aboard despite lower pay or benefits" but simply not cheating the organization you are (or were) part of. An employer who has to distrust every move of their employees will inevitably be a terrible employer to work at. No matter how hard they try not to be.
Not going below that baseline won't magically protect you from bad employers, but going below will inevitably turn any employer you work at into a bad employer, at least if enough of your peers aren't above following your example.
by usrusr
4/24/2025 at 5:32:47 PM
I feel this is a pretty cynical view. We can all be adults and understand it is a business relationship.The "reward for loyalty" varies greatly per company, but I would like to see it defined. I have worked on 12 companies since I started my career, some of them would probably rank very high for your definition and others very low.
by aprdm
4/24/2025 at 9:07:46 PM
I am loyal to my employer because I have almost absolute job security, work for my almamater and agree with our mission : 1- research
2- teaching
3- service to the community
by nick__m
4/24/2025 at 8:05:12 PM
Its better to think of your reputation than some kind of loyalty score you can cash in. Some people in the org care about your rep and some don't and that's all there is.by jayd16
4/24/2025 at 5:55:59 PM
Be loyal to people (your boss, your peers), but don't be loyal to tne entity that is your company. It has one job, and that is to make money. If it could do it without you, it wouldby __xor_eax_eax
4/24/2025 at 4:19:50 PM
Not even specific to the tech industry (not that you were saying it was).My ex- was working towards becoming a veterinarian. During a gap in schooling, she looked at some jobs as a tech or assistant.
She found a good fit, and got to the point of having an offer. But she was having a crisis of conscience. The ad, and interviewers, had talked about how they wanted people who would be invested and committed in the practice. Not in and out in a few months. But she knew that in 9-10 months she would be doing more schooling. Could she take the job in good conscience, knowing that?
Absolutely she could. I said this to her:
Okay, so they're asking for someone who'll be there for years, is committed to them.
Say you start work, and in three months there's a recession, or just a downturn in their business. Is their response more likely to be:
1) "Business is hard, times are tough, but you are committed to us and we are committed to you, so no layoffs, no firings, no pay decreases. Let's get through this together."
or will it be
2) "Business is hard, times are tough, so today will be your last day at XYZ Vet Hospital, thank you for your service."
by FireBeyond
4/24/2025 at 4:36:23 PM
Agreed, unless you see real, tangible reasons to do so.While I was talking to my partner (at the time) about her taking a part-time job while waiting on school, I worked for an employer that absolutely earned my loyalty:
She had enrolled in school for her pre-vet med course. But due to a mix up with financial aid or loans or similar, she woke up one morning to find that at about 6am the university had sent her an email saying that they'd not received tuition from her, and that they would soon be dropping her from her course. By the time she'd woke up they'd already done so. She panicked. I knew we'd done most of the work so I told her to jump in the shower and we'd go to the college and try to get it taken care of.
I told my boss (co-founder and CTO, though not so much a startup - small, but established a decade or more and profitable) I'd be out of touch for a few hours trying to deal with an issue. He and I talked a lot, and he could tell something was up so he asked what was up and I explained. His response earned a lot of loyalty from me (though we managed to get it taken care of without this):
"Let me know how everything goes. If there's nothing else that can be done, give me a call and we can put her tuition (remember, this isn't even his employee, but an employee's fiancee) on my corporate Amex, and we'll work with Chuck (company accountant) to figure out how we can handle it all on the back end."
I realize you can be cynical too, and look at this akin to the FAANGs offering laundry, daycare, etc., with the ultimate goal being "the less time you spend doing these things, the more you spend making us money", and there are of course aspects of that, but this was also very human and going above and beyond (like I could never in any world imagine a situation where your boss says "We can pay your partner's tuition and then we'll figure out payroll deductions or something to get it reconciled").
by FireBeyond
4/24/2025 at 3:19:56 PM
This isn't always true. I've been in engineering leadership a long time, and I've absolutely gone out of my way to cover for, or help out, engineers that I know put in the extra work, and I've seen other leaders do it too.It's not unlimited, but it exists.
by seneca
4/24/2025 at 9:16:33 PM
The jobs that pay > 2 million a year do require loyalty. Loyalty in commoditized work positions is a completely different thing, and as noted a mistake. But once there is alot of money on the line, trust is actually as important as anything else.by ldjkfkdsjnv