Differentiating between the two based on signals during hiring is almost impossible, though.
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).
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
So they are hoping to hire someone who will do it for free
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.
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.
But loyalty to a company is complete, utter BS.
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.
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.
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.
People get me a job when I look for one.
(Another thing I keep repeating is "You are not your job".)
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.
I 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.
I'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.
Luckily, this is not the case where I live. Both sides have the same amount of notice
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.
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.
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.
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.