Wisconsin Historical Society

It used to be you worked for the same company for pretty much your entire working life.  You exchanged your loyalty for a pre-set tenure.  In the auto industry, it was “30 and out.”  You worked in the plant for 30 years, like many of my relatives, and then you collected your pension and other retirement benefits.

It has been difficult to watch the working men and women awaiting the congressional decision that will seal their fate.  Any one of them could be my father or my cousin.  “As GM goes, so goes the nation.”  The bargain made with the companies by so many depends upon reciprocal loyalty.  What is owed to them who worked for so long in good faith?  It’s a tough question in the light of devastating corporate financial liabilities.

Loyalty comes in many guises.  Loyalty is woven into venues where relationships are paramount.  Fred Reichheld, who wrote The Loyalty Effect, established an economic case for loyalty, with metrics illustrating how a relationship is strengthened when an investment or personal sacrifice is made.  To simmer and cook well, loyalty needs trust as an ingredient.  Its mutation or lack altogether is at the crux of breakdown.

Photo by d4vidbruce

In business, customer and employee loyalty is the key to longevity in the marketplace.  There is good business in assessing and cultivating stronger relationships by using tactics such as rewards programs and contact strategies.  Relationship managers are springing up in companies that formerly relied upon salespeople or customer service representatives.  Does it really have to be this deliberate?  Couldn’t or shouldn’t this interaction be a little more natural?

It’s tempting to mistake long term relationships for loyalty when other factors, such as inertia or competition, might be at play.  We’ve wondered about political relationships, too.  In the Bush administration, loyalty played a key, and sometimes detrimental, role.  Scott McClellan, Scooter Libby, and former FEMA Head Michael Brown come to mind.

Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate Magazine, recently asserted that loyalty is the most overrated virtue in politics.  (Is there any virtue in politics, we wondered?)  Weisberg believes loyalty is “a relic from the age of patronage, when political appointments were tied to the delivery of votes for a sponsor.”  Thinking back upon the days where an employee spent his entire career with one company, an aspect of subservience seems present there:  Our parents, coming out of the Great Depression, felt lucky to have a job, and did everything they were asked and could do to retain it.  The employer held their fate, much in the way the overlord held the serf’s.

Photo by Piero Sierra

A commenter on Weisberg’s article wrote “Loyalty when used in politics, is transient in nature, and usually to a particular cause or principle, rather than a person or even a party.”  Some politicians may have valued loyalty over competence. Truman’s Loyalty Oath of 1947 provided for an investigation conducted by the Civil Service and the FBI.  There was a Loyalty Review Board and even a Master Index that referenced the inquiries into the backgrounds of government employees.

Is “loyal opposition” an oxymoron? In Truman’s day, in the midst of the Cold War, it would have appeared to have been so.  “Blind loyalty” appears to be more feared in our time. Weisberg admires those who can generate loyalty without seeming to care much about it, citing Bill Clinton, who as “famously untrue to everyone,” had an adaptability that ensured his political longevity.

Weisberg looks to Reagan, Roosevelt and even Herbert Hoover, as further examples, believing if you’re confident in your vision, you don’t need the insularity that surrounding yourself with loyalists brings.  However, one of our most isolated Presidents, Lyndon Johnson, might belie this theory.  LBJ famously kept J. Edgar Hoover in his job saying, “It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”  Does pragmatism trump loyalty in keeping your enemies closer?

What triggers disloyalty? Greed, mistrust, an entire host of catalysts.  Many are the multi-million dollar tell-all book deals made when loyalty is abandoned.  A disappointment in someone’s character triggered mine.  Years ago I worked for a personal injury lawyer who attempted to re-negotiate his fee for a higher payout when a case settled for millions of dollars more than he anticipated.  During a meeting with the client, I quietly shook my head when she looked at me questioningly when he floated the idea.  I left his employ shortly after, and I have never regretted it.

Photo by mamuso

How detrimental would disloyalty be to someone who doesn’t spend a lot of time worrying about it? Jacob Weisberg seems to think Obama pays attention to other things than how loyal his appointments and staffers are.  I tend to disagree with that assessment.

It’s hard not to believe Obama is just as concerned with loyalty as his immediate predecessor has been.  After all, there’s that 60+ page questionnaire that’s floating around.  It’s paramount to present a united front in a new Administration that could be under criticism for lack of experience in its Chief Executive. And, it’s only a matter of time before someone decides to cash in on proximity to the Office of the President.

When the potential for disloyalty in any relationship is high, do we assess the risk?

What part does the potential for loyalty play in today’s Human Resource function?

How loyal do we expect our employees, friends and family to be?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Come Saturday Morning: Things Found En Route To Looking Up Other Things
• Upcoming McClellan Memoir Blasts Bush, Rove, White House
• Ailing Carmakers Return to Congress, This Time Asking for $34 Billion
• White House, Dems. Discuss Auto Bailout
• What’s ahead for GM?
• Consumers Don’t Think Saving The Auto Industry Would Help The Economy [Auto Bailout]

LOYALTY is a post from: Passing Thru