Employees have a duty of loyalty to the companies that employ them. It is irrational for employees to expect companies to recognize and fulfill a duty of loyalty to their employees. Therefore, employees do not have a duty of loyalty to the companies that employ them. This paper is aimed at discussing and justifying the deduction made by the employee loyalty argument. This will be achieved by investigating the structure of the argument in order to determine whether the argument is deductively valid or invalid as well as deductively sound or unsound with the help of sufficient proof that will eventually come to a concrete basis for my reasoning. For an argument to be considered valid, the premises for the argument should be related to the …show more content…
A deductively sound argument is one that is deductively valid and all its premises are considered only true otherwise it is a deductively unsound argument. The employee’s loyalty argument is a deductively valid argument however it is deductively unsound. The first premise is false making the whole argument unsound, no employee is entitled to a duty of loyalty to the company that employs them. According to Duska, loyalty is something intended for animate objects, hence a company is not a proper object to give loyalty to. Duska defines loyalty as the wholehearted dedication to an object of some kind. A company’s or any type of business’ main priority is to make profit, therefore it is very difficult for the business to reciprocate such kind of dedication to its employees. Hence, any kind of relationship whether in sub-ordinate or managerial level is profit-oriented. It is crystal clear that a business would prioritize profit over its employees. It would therefore make little or no sense at all to give loyalty to a business that would function perfectly well without offering your loyalty at all. The company can only be loyal to its employees only when being loyal to them increases the profit of the company. This argument could be sound if and only if it had profit as its
It’s usually this type of employee that is treated unfairly and gets stuck in a job they do not like. I know I was one of those loyal employees. With the economic shift and government influences (Obama care!) Having a job that works for you and takes care of you is vital.
Duska argues that loyalty to a corporation is in fact misguided loyalty, and he further explains that objects of loyalty
The Employee Loyalty Argument is deductively valid. A deductively valid argument is defined as “an argument such that the truth of its premises would guarantee the truth of its conclusion” (Durham, “Argument Evaluation
market. Since, profits are indefinite; monopolies need not diversify nor improve in their products. Therefore, profits do not serve any useful social purpose in monopoly as they do in pure competition (Ulbrich,
According to Arora, Yousaf and Gupta (2015), employee commitment to an organization has a strong influence on customer satisfaction and the quality of customer has improved service due to the multidimensional skills that are developed
profit. This however is simply not true and has been proven time and time again with the
There is also the reason of employment based reasoning, which are based on the priority of the workers
Companies should also consider how they could protect the company’s knowledge advantage. If the organisation is hiring a lot of outside workforce, the same workers might also work for direct competitors. The loyalty of temporary workforce is not necessarily the same as permanent employees, who have formed lasting relations inside the
Duboff, R. (1999). Loyal Employees Are a Key Link to a Firm's Value. Journal of Management in Engineering, 9.
We can build customer loyalty by revealing the values to the customer. Customers will often go out of their way to support companies that share their values. We can build employee allegiance by revealing the values to the employees.
Loyalty is defined as a strong feeling of support or allegiance. I agree fully with this definition. Being loyal is one of the most important of th...
In cultures that value loyalty to the employer, a kind of family relationship seems to develop between employer and employee. It is a reciprocal arrangement, which the employer is concerned with assisting the employee to develop to his or her full potential and the employee is concerned about optimizing the welfare of the company. The negative aspect to absolute loyalty to one company is that an employee may stay in one job that he or she has outgrow and may miss out on opportunities to develop in new directions. From the employer’s point of view, the employee may be burdened with employees whose skills no longer match the needs of the company.
This study examines the performance management and reward strategy used in Unilever to retain and motivate their employees for a long term. Both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are given to employees to make them loyal and to utilize their skills to further improve the performance of Unilever. Almost all the factors of reward strategies and performance management are discussed and evaluated accordingly. Performance of the employees might be get affected if the rewards are not given to employees, so to motivate them furthermore the Maslow Hierarchy of need theory is also recommended to Unilever to make their employees loyal.
In 1997, Development Dimension International (DDI) carried out interviews, literature reviews and surveys to study the effective service environment. They found that there is a good strong relationship between employee performance and loyalty and its effects on increasing company productivity and profitability.
In order to achieve the desired attitude and behavioural changes among employees, it is essential to understand the objectives, expectations and goals of the organization and the employees (Mohyin, Dainty, & Carrillo, 2009). Failing in understanding what employees require and expect from the employment relationship will often lead to the deterioration in commitment and loyalty and thus increase employee turnover (Loosemore et al., 2003).