> My instinct tells me that the smart ones leave, the "loyal" ones pay a price for their loyalty that they don't expect. The opportunities that come up for a "

> My instinct tells me that the smart ones leave, the "loyal" ones pay a price for their loyalty that they don't expect. The opportunities that come up for a "smart" person is many-fold for the ones who're not acknowledged as smart - the difference in productivity might be minimal, but the label can be sticky purely due to narcissism. Don't get me wrong. Self belief is an important part of signing up for a challenge that is bigger than anything you've done before - instead of being given a new badge & the same job elsewhere. Then, there's the trouble with the signaling of "loyalty". Not looking for another job is too easy to qualify as loyalty. But that's what mostly gets put up as being loyal, which is fairly low-bar for anyone. Now, the trouble is removing the "just not looking" confounding factor from a proper study - relying on self-reporting for that is going to produce bias. Loyalty as a word has come to mean a pseudo-virtue which is papered over the actual rational decision to stick with what you've got, considering all the risks. And people who can't see opportunity over the horizon rarely get to better places. The fact that people blossom when they get laid off takes away that illusion - there is no status quo bias or loss aversion to overcome. Immediately people are less risk averse to new roles, knock on more doors & grow. Loyalty as practiced would mean acting in mutual benefit always - not sacrifice.