AT&T’s Market-Based Culture Shift and What It Reveals About the Future of Work
Part 2 of 2: What It Means for the Job Market, HR Leaders, and the Future of Performance Management
Editors note: This is the second part of a two part series on this topic. For the first part, you can find it here [hyperlink].
In my first installment of this series, I broke down AT&T CEO John Stankey’s memo to employees and what it reveals about the company’s shift toward a market-based culture — one focused on competition, accountability, and performance metrics.
In this follow-up, I explore how that shift fits within today’s job market and what it means for HR and leadership.
Is This What the Modern Job Market is Asking For?
In the tech world of 2025, where companies like Microsoft, Salesforce, and Cisco are blending performance with transparency, flexibility, and purpose (something younger workers want more than ever), AT&T’s approach simultaneously feels like a throwback to the Jack Welch era of competitive realism.
In Welch’s case at General Electric (GE), Welch transformed GE from an iconic industrial firm with loyal employees into a corporation that relied heavily on its finance division and adopted a transactional relationship with its workers. While this skyrocketed Welch’s reputation as a CEO and temporarily made GE the world’s most valuable company, it ultimately led to failure. GE underinvested in R&D, over-relied on acquisitions, hemorrhaged talent, and its finance division was susceptible to crisis. After Welch retired, issues worsened, culminating in GE’s breakup in 2021 after 133 years in business. Similar patterns emerged at companies like Home Depot and Albertsons when Welch’s approach was copied. While short-term profits often rose, long-term impacts harmed workers, investors, and the company.
The RTO Gamble
“Our employees deserve reliable support with their current responsibilities and impromptu guidance for continued development. This is why we work in person, together, during common hours,” Stankey wrote. This might be what Stankey thinks they deserve, but is this what they even asked for?
While there is no doubt in my mind that, as of this writing, the scales of the modern job market are tipping in favor of employers, the best talent wants more flexibility than ever. According to the World Economic Forum, in 2025, many workers are expected to make significant trade-offs to avoid a full-time return to the office, including forgoing higher pay (50%) or promotions (53%). However, they are also clear on what they want in return when an RTO policy is mandated: a higher salary, more flexible working hours, and additional leave.
This is further juxtaposed by the fact that Stankey mentions wanting to downsize the company’s physical real estate while pushing people into office “hubs” – essentially relocating or forcing commutes on likely thousands of people. Meanwhile, competitors like Verizon viewed the office mandate as an opportunity to attract AT&T workers who preferred hybrid work schedules.
Summarizing what one commenter said, it’s ironic that AT&T sells products promoting remote connection and work while forcing its employees to work in the office.
Did HR Have a Seat at the Table?
3Sixty’s past research has indicated that only 82% of HR organizations are not fully aligned with overall business objectives, and this appears to be a prime example of that.
While HR undoubtedly had a role in the engagement survey AT&T ran, a few key workforce management questions come to mind:
- Did HR play a role in the strategy to address this pulse check with such blunt messaging?
- Was HR consulted regarding employment data about what percentage of workers would need to relocate if a full RTO mandate were implemented, and did any pulse checks have data about their sentiment for such a move change?
- Is there sufficient office space and in-person resources to manage this many people in person so quickly?
- What kind of messaging and direction will follow about this culture shift in a company as broad and diverse as AT&T?
- How does the new AT&T cultural tenet of “Win as One” butt up against the individualism of a market-based workplace?
While I understand that performance-based management is often unavoidable, there are also leaders genuinely looking to understand how they can help their employees reach their full potential through tested means. In either case, having the right platforms and systems in place is essential for success.
During my time with 3Sixty Insights, I’ve had the chance to speak with many technology vendors, each offering unique approaches to workforce management, workforce analytics, and employee development. For any company trying to balance market-driven leadership with empathy, transparency, and trust, these tools – such as those offered by Engagedly, Phenom, Culture Amp, isolved, and Harri – can make the difference between a culture that merely manages people and one that truly empowers them. Organizations that give their managers visibility, data, and developmental resources are much more likely to turn performance expectations into lasting engagement and, ultimately, growth.
Conclusion
Stankey’s memo seems to reflect a leader who’s “in control,” but in reality may be hampering innovation, resilience, and trust in his quest to do so. It suppresses genuine engagement, reducing employees to mere metrics rather than partners in shaping the culture: You’re engaged when you contribute to the company’s market success. This limits potential and perpetuates disengagement.
There are potentially tactical reasons behind his approach: forced downsizing – having people leave on their own accord is easier and cheaper than paying severance – or the first steps towards a potential merger, sell off, or breakup of AT&T. Stankey seems to want to run the organization on adrenaline for a sprint, not a marathon. Maybe that’s because there’s no marathon up ahead. Or has Stankey just gotten ahead of the curve? Is he betting that workplace culture is a race to the bottom now that AI can commoditize knowledge work? Why does he need culture (or humans) when he can simply automate?
Still, I can’t shake the fact that for a CEO trying to “pick [his] brain for an example of another 100+ year old company that didn’t have to disrupt itself to secure sustainable relevance,” Stankey seems dedicated to returning to a workplace model that ceased to be relevant over a decade ago, and damages future-proofing by restricting the talent pool to proximity to geographic hubs.
Despite his “adapt or die” ethos, Stankey appears poised to market himself and his business as an old company adhering to outdated workplace culture. If he wants to exist in a world of competitive realism, not sentimentality, where the market sets the terms, then maybe it’s time for Stankey to accept that the world has changed. As Stankey said himself, there’s a market play at work. If people don’t like it, they will go elsewhere, and AT&T will begin to hemorrhage talent to companies that are more forward-thinking and don’t carry both the ideologies and culture of a company that is starting to sound stuck in the year of its founding: 1885.
Parts of AT&T’s cultural pivot are clear, disciplined, and strategically necessary. But in the modern workplace, where belonging and flexibility are as critical as productivity, winning the market may require first winning the workforce.
History indicates that when firms prioritize short-term gains over engagement and innovation, even shareholders can ultimately suffer. I’ll be interested to see how AT&T’s earnings increase or decrease once this strategy is implemented or if it even gets off the ground. The stubborn approach of choosing talent who are closest to you rather than the best talent is going to come back to haunt him.
Read part 1 here: AT&T’s Market-Based Culture Shift and What It Reveals About the Future of Work – Part 1 of 2