The last article I published on loyalty was in 2003. The last article I read on diminishing loyalty was in Commerce Clearing House in September 2007 with the header, "Fewer employees are as loyal to their company as they once were." The statement, if you want a friend around here, buy a dog, was made in 1948 (and probably earllier). By now, that leaves us with one loyal employee. We should be looking for him right now.

In 1990, The Wall Street Journal reported that "trust and loyalty run low at American companies," while in 1992, a SHRM news release reported "Loyalty between employee and employer remains fairly stable." In 2001, a survey report by TFM stated, "Loyalty has once again slipped as companies fail to communicate their financial woes and how that affects or will effect employees."

We may well have gotten the story straight in 1990 and 2001, but perhaps this is cyclical - or maybe it's a sign of this new economy and society. Yes, I think society has changed considerably and quickly in just 12 years. Loyalty or lack thereof is no longer unidimensional, i.e., based on one factor such as downsizing. The foundations of trustworthiness have been badly shaken in just the past seven months.

What follows was my take on the subject in 2000. So let's see what's happened in the intervening 10 years since the SHRM release and whether my premises hold.

Psychological and Cultural Changes: The wave of downsizing certainly undermined whatever trust, hence loyalty, that existed on the part of employees. Whatever loyalty there was on the part of the employer may have been an illusion, having given way to economics and bottom lines and the changes in the labor market.

Coincidentally, mergers and mega-mergers contributed to the loss of allegiance on the part of employees. Other than the layoffs engendered by mergers, there emerged a kind of paranoia within the leftovers. Those who remained after a merger couldn't be certain that they could be next. Those who came from the merged company into the "new" company couldn't figure out where to place their allegiances.

Leading up to our current fluid labor market, even before the era of bulging and bingeing (analogous to corporate eating disorders), was the fact that we had become a highly mobile society. In the 50's and 60's, most people who finally left their home states (or cities for that matter) were retirees. Few people would move from Massachusetts to Arizona for a job. There was too much at stake, especially if the job didn't work out. Companies, for pretty much the same reason, were reluctant to pay for moving.

But from the early 80's on, we became a highly mobile society and, even during recessions, or perhaps especially in recessions, people packed up and moved to wherever the jobs were. During the recessions of the 80's and early 90's, interviewers were no longer concerned with gaps in resumes and, little by little, the norm of staying with an employer for five or six years disappeared. Along came the computer/information/technology revolution, and now interviewers didn't (and don't) care that you had five jobs in the past two years. The question was whether you could do the job at hand.

If you had the background and skills, it didn't matter how many jobs you had, but that led to another factor that led to the demise of loyalty. One now knew that once a project was completed, there was a good possibility that one would have to look for another job and, as I write this, it's not much of a concern because of the fluid market and the ability to truly go with the flow. One didn't have to get in a covered wagon to travel from state to state. Hop a jet and in six hours or less, you could be anywhere in the US (it could take six hours to get to the airport, but that's for another article). In a way, it's a little sad to think that all of your worldly possessions could fit into one moving van. "Home" took on a whole new meaning, or maybe a whole old meaning. Home was where the heart was because few lived in the same house for more than few years.

Evolution: A funny thing happened on the way to work. At the same time that loyalty to ones employer was on the decline, loyalty to companies and products in general also declined. (We used to think of our employees as the company's ambassadors. Yeah, we did. A "happy" employee would talk up the company when outside of the work situation. A disgruntled employee could do damage to the company's reputation and public persona. Judging from your furrowed foreheads, we don't think that way anymore.)

As consumers we no longer have the brand loyalty or loyalty to a specific bank, phone company, or gas station that we once did, and we don't have that loyalty because our choices have expanded and contracted at the same time. Large companies that used to stress customer service seem to be stressing something else today, perhaps just growth and bottom lines, but most large companies have lost sight of customer relations. (I will give personal kudos to two who are still very much customer oriented, Dell Computers and Quallcom, and there may be others but I haven't had contact with them this past year.)

There is a reason for bring up this part of the evolution of loyalty: we have come to expect short-term relationships and, even though we have lost the stability, we have gained in the number of choices. If you still don't catch my drift, how many calls have you had from phone companies asking you to switch? How many credit card offers did you get last year? I still remember the days when we would discuss the differences between MasterCard and Visa, AT&T and Sprint. Now, just show me where I can save money, and I'm gone.

Perhaps all relationships have been compressed and, realizing that, we have come to expect short-term alliances. From a consumer standpoint, the feeling seems to be mutual. From an employee standpoint, there are many small and midsize companies still wondering how to retain employees even though the employees may not care.

Lack of Control: We accept this and employees accept their lot because

 

This article has been moved to the subscriber's section.