> It's camaraderie
Ok, but it's not loyalty. At least I hope not...
Those like-minded peers you've had owed you no nothing. You had a fair, respectful, professional relationship with them that was self sustaining and therefore did not demand allegience in either direction.
If a better opportunity came along for them I would hope that you would want them to take it despite your history and the camaraderie you've established with them. And same for you.
I think we're agreeing. I just don't think loyalty (necessarily) implies mutual trust and support.
I've been accused of being disloyal simply for being honest and not agreeing with someone else's stance. So in my gut, loyalty implies abondoning your principals or compromising yourself in some way in order to gain or keep favor with someone else.
I suppose others may think of loyalty as a positive trait. But in the context of of a profressional relationship, I can't see any reason we should want loyalty to play a role.
> If a better opportunity came along for them I would hope that you would want them to take it despite your history and the camaraderie you've established with them. And same for you.
To me, it was not about people leaving you behind, but calling you up when opportunities arise (though I didn't feel that way when it first happened at the beginning of my career). Camaraderie doesn't mean you owe people or are owed anything, but is a mutual level of trust and support.
Of the 6 jobs I've had over the past 20 years, 5 of them have been from former colleagues reaching out.