Loyalty has been consigned to being that old-fashioned thing, derided and sneered at as if it renders a person a fossil or a misfit, irrelevant to the future and an impediment to navigating the present. The language of ‘what’s in it for me?’ or enlightened self-interest, popular as it is, has made loyalty seem lame and staid.

Loyalty suffers from some unfortunate associations that have come to be over the years – an unquestioning disposition, unflinching followership, underplaying or suspension of self-needs, and unabashed obsequiousness. Those loyal are often admired but also looked upon with suspicion and as a lost cause – those who will neither bend nor move, unshakeable in some ways, but judged as inflexible in many other ways.

Take a moment and think. What do the phrases ‘a loyal friend’, ‘a loyal lover’, ‘a loyal citizen’, ‘a loyal subject’, ‘a loyal adherent’, a ‘loyal…’ convey to you?

Let me try and share what comes to mind. First, to be steadfast. No matter what. To stick by someone or something, come what may. Second, a deep unshakeable and unilateral commitment to persons or things one is loyal to. This does not waver because of aberrations, deviations, lapses of judgment, inducements or threats from the environment. So, third, the ability to give a long rope, forgive, retain goodwill and faith in people and things one is loyal to in the event of lapses. Fourth, the courage and humility to be the butt of jokes, receive sarcasm, judgments and mockery, often misdirected. Fifth, trust that who or what one is loyal to is concerned with well being or some aspect of it. Loyalty is ultimately a tale of trust in the goodness of individuals, collectives, ideas and ideals. Sixth, is therefore a willingness to confront and to fight where necessary when this is threatened.

In other words, being loyal, to my mind, is not looking the other way or maintaining silence, keeping up a make-believe, tranquil relationship, or being fiercely protective through denial in the face of wrongdoing. However expressions of loyalty beyond bounds could take the form of ‘wilful blindness’ and collusion, a sense of entitlement, over-personalisation and blackmail. This surely feeds into the case against loyalty made vigorously by those who hold a more transactional view of organizations.

I reject the notion that fostering loyalty in organizations is regressive and undesirable. I reject the notion that loyalty and a meritocracy are antithetical. I reject the notion that loyalty is an impediment to change and progress. It is another matter that co-holding them would present a challenge, a good problem to have. I would argue that loyalty is a valuable lever rather than a millstone; a loyal member is concerned about the long-term health of the system and can be prompted to act as a stakeholder. It is a glue that is not easily amenable to putting a price on, or readily transferable.

A common mistake that one might make is to treat loyalty and longevity/tenure as interchangeable; one may then conveniently raise the bogey of betrayal when a loyalist exits or view the stickiness that comes from loyalty as an irritant, a hurdle at another time.

In organizations, people who are loyal can be experienced as a threat. Their demand is simple – your loyalty, in return, a readiness to take responsibility for growing the relationship (with individuals and/or the system). Those for whom the organization is just another pit-stop in their race to the top job or whatever career pinnacle they imagine, the naked opportunism and extractive behaviour stands exposed. This discomfort becomes the source of attack through jokes and put-downs of those labelled loyalists.

For those who say loyalty is overrated or outdated, one may give some thought to whether being fickle, undependable, mercenary, or habitually deal-making is somehow more contemporary and legitimate currency in human relations and organizational dynamics. What kind of relationships are worth investing in and fostering, and whether organization design for the future will render loyalty a relic?