Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not invalid by itself as long as everyone knows that the game is purely transactional. But it isn't fair to expect employee "passion" when their own continued employment is contingent on whether management thinks they're still necessary. This still seems to hold no?
> when their own continued employment is contingent on whether management thinks they're still necessary Talk about entitlement. You think that when a company hires you, that should be a commitment to employ you forever regardless of need? Passion can come from your own investment in the success of the business, through equity and through the opportunities that come to productive employees at growing companies, both…
Hardly. I can't speak for the original comment I quoted, but I personally view employment as pretty transactional. You pay me this, I give you this. I may or may not have passion, but that should be immaterial to the job at hand.
The employer sets a bar. The employee clears it or does not. That bar may change over time. If the employee does not clear the bar the employer fires the employee. If the employee clears the bar the employer continues paying the employee.
To the extent that passion comes into the conversation, it's an internal issue for the employee to sort out by themselves and not really the business of the employer.
Are you saying something different? Because I don't think we're actually in disagreement, but maybe we are?