How employers cheat their employees
Employees are evaluated correctly by the chiefs, promoted based on merit and their merit is recognized. Their work is important for the company. Heads respect their employees and vice versa. And most important: employee really matters for the company, it is not just a statistical fact. Wrong! All this is propaganda, and without it, companies would go bankrupt!
It is not profitable for a company to respect the declarative values preached aggressively to employees. There is always an 'optimal' compliance with those values beyond which the company lost. Obviously, you can not say that in public
If they want to go on profit, the company will never meet it's propaganda, but will continue to preach it to it's employees. It's a matter of calculation and optimization: how is profitable (short, medium and long term) and where is no longer profitable to follow the principles.
A company that concludes that it is profitable to strictly respect the principles in the US or Germany, will may find too expensive to do the same in Romania, at the moment. Therefore, they "adapt" the principles on social context, although the principles are the same in Romania and the USA.
Every employee is important for the company
This is false for most companies. Really important for companies are those in management, protégés of the management / owners and key people (perhaps the chief accountant, maybe one or two specialists really needed). The rest can be easily replaced.
To find out who is really important for the company and who is not, we must answer the question "what is the impact of the departure of that man" (in terms of money, time required for replacement, image).
This fact it's true and partially true, at very small companies (under 10 employees), where everyone counts, where it's easy to feel when someone it's missing.
A company must depend on as few employees as possible. The more dependent on, the more vulnerable. Only a few people in a company are the "most valuable asset" of it.
The company thinks it's business in that way, so when a nonessential employee is leaving, to have minimal impact on business (job being taken away by someone else, without causing visible disruption in activity).
Employees are unique, irreplaceable
If in a company is someone truly irreplaceable, then usually it's the founder. The company is dependent on its skills and connections. We're talking about small or very young companies, which are in a time when no one believes in them.
These are very personal businesses, covering highly specialized niches. If the founder cease to handle the business, it dies. Once exceeded the critical period in which a company depends on its founder, then even the founder can be replaced.
You are loyal to the company and sacrifice yourself for it, so you will not be fired.
Companies are firing loyal employees if business goes down. An employee is valuable for the company as long as the company is his staying is profitable. When you cease to be profitable for the employer, the company will fire you, or, in a more optimistic scenario, will cut the "protection" offered. Loyalty is a white contract: the employee assumes unconditional commitment, the company did not.
Loyal employees who will sacrifice everything for the company relies on job, mobilize their energy to do work performance. They are emotionally involved in their work and takes every failure as a personal defeat. They think that the company's "success" is closely linked to their performance.
The company sells an ideology that preaches happiness
The loyal employee is workaholic and dependent from the company for who is working, though it's hard to tell which is the real source of his addiction. He is viewing the company as a "savior" who has all the solutions he need, at a time: the medical and life insurance, holidays, schools and kindergartens, etc.
There are great giants, huge multinationals investing in their brand, both externally and internally. The internal loyalty programs through the benefits it provides (car, life and medical insurance, legal support on various issues, easy access to credit, kindergartens, etc.) the employee meets the brand almost everywhere, including in personal life, thus that these companies actually invades the entire universe of the employee.
The employee who idolizes the company prefers, rather, this type of protection from the company, than a higher salary because he can not manage his own life. These are the same employees who prefer to work in team-building than to meet with the family.
For them there is nothing else significant in the world, and they are not able to take their own life in their hands and are pleased that the company has taken this task. The weakear the people are, the greater becomes the dependence of the company.
In addition to employees ready to sacrifice for the company, there are also another type of employees with a "healthy dose" of loyalty. The aren't weak people and they have a system of value articulated. They were employed by the company as young people, and they are loyal, because they can't comapare the company with another.
The benefits offered by the company are designed, beyond the employers declarative speech, in a simple logic of economic purpose: I provide all that you need, now you have to do performance.
While going on emotional bond that grows with its employees, companies invest in them (through these loyalty programs) because they want one thing: performance! And it's already common practice to use the emotional component of their relationship with employees to achieve this goal.
The company no longer applies double standards. All employees are evaluated fairly, without discrimination.
This is false for most companies. The Reason? Companies do not have evaluation systems, no proceeding or make assessment badly or are subjective and, therefore, anything is possible. Including recourse to the double standards because it's allowed by assessment tools.
However, employees are evaluated fairly, without discrimination in companies that have developed and implemented systems performance assessment for years and have built an organizational culture based on meritocracy.
If the company "rewards" the employee, does not mean that it won't fire him
When the employee is no longer profitable for the company, is fired, or, in a more optimistic scenario, they will cut the "protection" offered. Once he find that company wants to fire him, his love transforms in hatred.
Employees who idolizes their company, will perceive their dismissal as a betrayal from the company, and "commitment to the company" quickly turns into hatred and revenge. There is no substantive difference between love and hatred to a company, it's exactly the same feeling (sometimes with "plus", sometimes with " minus ").
Employee's feedback it's important
You must have often heard it said that employee's feedback is important for employer and it must be encouraged and it's verbalization. Chiefs want to know the opinion of each employee in the company because it matters to the employer. This fact it's also fals for most of the companies.
For these companies "dialogue" is more unilateral, from management to employees and vice versa more as gossip. Employee opinion matters little, what matters is that they do not comment.
Employer increase your wage to reward your efforts
You think that they will increase your wage to reward your efforts, but they are doing this to feel legitimate to ask you to work to exhaustion. Usually, in practice, wage increases can legitimize a form of employee abuse assumed in desperation or unconsciousness, which allows the employer to exploit, citing the money offered in addition to salary or only promised. Usually the employers make known their expectations without saying a word about overtime, much exhausting work.
After increasing employee's wages, this should motivate them to work more efficiently, not necessarily more. In practice, the question that the employer is too coward to ask you is: are you willing to receive a salary increase but instead to work to exhaustion? Only a few employers are honest and they say explicitly that increasing employee's wage means more duties, responsibilities, extended work schedule, etc.