Focus less on loyalty and more on commitment with your people

Managers often label departing employees as “disloyal”.

But here’s the thing: loyalty is overrated.

Loyalty is too easily used to coerce people into abandoning their interests. As if it’s used in the sense of “you should show loyalty, no matter what”.

The “no matter what” is the problem.

Managers can’t expect people to stay in workplaces that don’t support their long-term growth.

And workers shouldn’t stay in workplaces that are causing them harm.

Instead, I think it’s more helpful to frame the relationship between an organisation and a team member as one of commitment.

What is commitment?

I think someone’s commitment is measured by their willingness to weather short-term discomfort and to actively work through issues for the chance of long-term mutual growth.

Importantly, this must be a two way deal.

Employers must demonstrate at least as much commitment as employees.

Because there’s frankly more evidence – or at least more prominent evidence – to suggest that it’s often organisations, if anyone, that are prone to disloyalty. And the consequences are usually far greater, given the one to many relationship from employer to employees.

It’s all too common to hear of mass layoffs in order to protect financial margins.

Should companies run at unsustainable losses that jeopardise their long – viability? Of course not.

But I think it’s reasonable for them to weather the short-term discomfort of subdued financial results while they work through issues with their people, to at least check for a path forward that works for both parties.

Aside from the serious consequences for sacked workers, it was the organisation’s choice to employ so many people in the first place. Moving cautiously on downsizing is part of taking responsibility for it having employed more people for longer than it needs (which is not the fault of employees).

Employers that are prepared to cut people without weathering short-term discomfort while simultaneously expecting loyalty are not just hypocritical, they’re mere fair weather friends.

I don’t just think this is wrong, I think it’s dumb. Because employers that do this will suffer reputationally and find it hard to compete for the most talented people, especially in tight labour markets.

So, next time a team member leaves and catches you by surprise, sit with the disappointment and reflect less on their loyalty and more on their commitment.

Did they weather short-term discomfort? Did they try and work through the issues? Would they have been sacrificing their long-term growth by staying?

And vice-versa for the employer. Was the relationship characterised by mutual levels of commitment?

Maybe not. Maybe the employee showed a genuine lack of commitment. In which case it’s understandable to be disappointed. And fair to communicate this respectfully as feedback.