Is Workplace Loyalty Truly Dead? An Operations Perspective on AI, Cost Reduction, and Human Value

Introduction: When CEOs Say the Quiet Part Out Loud

John Stankey's 2,500-word memo to AT&T managers went viral not for its novelty, but for its brutal honesty. In it, he declared that the company has "consciously shifted away from some of these elements and towards a more market-based culture—focused on rewarding capability, contribution, and commitment," explicitly moving away from "loyalty, tenure, and conformance with the associated compensation." What Stankey said out loud is what many of us in operations leadership have been grappling with for years: the traditional employment contract is broken, and we're all pretending it isn't.

As President/CEO of Polytuf Brands, Vice President of Operations at Midwest Retail Services, and previous owner of The Kalal Group, I've managed through multiple economic cycles, technology implementations, and workforce transformations across diverse operational environments.

The question isn't whether loyalty is dead—it's whether it was ever truly alive in the way we romanticized it, and what comes next.

The Erosion of the Traditional Contract: A Historical Perspective

The workplace loyalty that Stankey dismisses wasn't always a myth. My father worked 35 years for the same company, retired with a pension, and genuinely believed the company cared about him as a person. That wasn't naive; it was the reality of mid-20th century American business. Companies invested in workers because they needed institutional knowledge, and workers stayed because mobility was limited and loyalty was rewarded.

But that world began cracking in the 1980s. Corporate raiders demonstrated that companies were assets to be optimized, not communities to be preserved. The shift from defined benefit to defined contribution retirement plans fundamentally altered the risk equation. By the time I entered management in the early 2000s, the "psychological contract" was already fraying, even if we didn't call it that.

This evolution has been particularly visible in manufacturing and distribution. These industries have always operated on thin margins, making them early adopters of efficiency technologies. When I led the implementation of integrated ERP systems at Schott International, it eliminated multiple positions while improving accuracy and reducing processing time by significant margins. When I oversaw the acquisition and integration of a US-based manufacturing company at Polytuf Brands, we had to make difficult decisions about redundant roles even as we expanded overall capacity.

This reality check preceded AI by decades. The current conversation about artificial intelligence merely accelerates trends that began with basic automation and data integration.

AI as Accelerant, Not Catalyst

The fear that AI is turning workers into replaceable cogs misses a crucial point: many jobs were already systematized long before machine learning existed. What AI does is make visible the processes that were always procedural, and eliminates the comfortable fiction that routine cognitive work is inherently human.

I've witnessed this transformation across multiple organizations. At Polytuf Brands, our inventory management and logistics systems evolved to consider dozens of variables simultaneously—from supplier performance metrics to seasonal patterns to shipping cost optimization. The freight rating program we implemented automatically selected the lowest cost carrier for every shipment, reducing transportation costs by 50%. More recently at Midwest Retail Services, we pioneered enterprise AI deployment with LLM solutions for contract analysis, process automation, and workflow optimization—transforming a $30M shelving distributor's operations while scaling shipments 91% year-over-year. This wasn't just about replacing human decision-making; it was about handling complexity at a scale that human cognition simply cannot match.

But here's what the doomsayers miss: this hasn't eliminated the need for human judgment. Instead, it's elevated the type of judgment required. Our purchasing teams focused on supplier relationship management, strategic sourcing decisions, and exception handling. The systems handled the routine; humans handled the relational and strategic. When we negotiated the acquisition of our manufacturing company, no algorithm could have assessed the cultural fit, the hidden liabilities, or the integration challenges that ultimately determined success.

This distinction is critical. AI doesn't make humans obsolete; it makes routine humans obsolete. The question for organizations isn't whether to embrace this technology—that choice has been made by competitive pressure. The question is how to help workers transition from routine to strategic value creation.

The Myth of Individual Gain as Sole Motivator

Stankey's memo suggests that workers should be motivated purely by "capability, contribution, and commitment" in a market-based system, implying that financial incentives and career advancement are sufficient motivators. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives performance in knowledge work.

In my experience leading teams through major technology implementations and business acquisitions, individual gain is necessary but not sufficient for sustained high performance. Yes, people need to believe their efforts will be rewarded. But they also need to believe their work matters, that they're developing capabilities that will serve them beyond their current role, and that they're part of something larger than themselves.

When we tripled our containment product line sales to seven figures at Polytuf Brands, our most successful team members weren't those motivated solely by financial rewards. They were the ones who saw the project as an opportunity to learn new markets, solve complex customer problems, and build something meaningful. They understood that their current employer might not offer lifetime security, but the skills and relationships they developed would make them valuable anywhere.

This suggests a new model: not loyalty to the organization, but loyalty to the profession, the craft, and one's own continuous development. Workers invest in learning and growth; companies invest in providing meaningful challenges and development opportunities. When those interests align, you get engagement. When they don't, you get the quiet resignation that survey data captures.

The False Binary of Human Versus Machine

The narrative that AI reduces humans to cogs perpetuates a false binary between human and machine capabilities. In reality, the most effective modern operations combine human judgment with machine efficiency in ways that amplify both.

Consider our approach to customer relationships in both my manufacturing and distribution roles. Technology can flag potential issues, analyze patterns in communication, and suggest strategies based on similar scenarios. But the actual relationship building—whether negotiating with big-box retailers or managing complex client transitions—requires empathy, creative problem-solving, and trust-building that no algorithm can replicate.

In my experience with business operations, I've found that technology can draft standard documents and analyze risk patterns efficiently. For certain routine agreement work, AI tools can be incredibly helpful for initial drafts and review processes—though I should note this requires proper legal supervision, and I'm fortunate to be a licensed attorney qualified to oversee such work. Others should not attempt this without proper legal counsel. But when you're sitting across from a business owner who's deciding whether to sell the company their grandfather built, that's fundamentally human work that requires emotional intelligence, cultural understanding, and ethical judgment.

This perspective comes from leading organizations through major transitions while maintaining both operational effectiveness and strategic vision. The most effective modern operations combine human judgment with technological efficiency in ways that amplify both.

This isn't callous; it's realistic. In a competitive market, organizations that don't optimize this balance will lose to those that do. The question isn't whether this is fair—it's how to help people succeed within this reality.

Redefining Loyalty for the AI Age

What Stankey gets right is his honesty about expectations. The problem isn't that he's asking for commitment without offering loyalty—it's that he's offering so little in return for that commitment. Employees deserve more than "a functional facility" and basic tools. They deserve investment in their development, transparent communication about business realities, and respect for their contributions.

True leadership in this environment means creating what I call "adaptive loyalty"—a mutual commitment to helping each other succeed in a changing environment, rather than pretending that change isn't happening. Companies invest in worker development and provide honest feedback about market realities. Workers invest in continuous learning and contribute to organizational adaptation.

In practice, this means several shifts from traditional approaches:

Transparency over false security. Rather than pretending jobs are secure when they're not, leaders should honestly discuss which roles are likely to change, how they might evolve, and what skills will be necessary for future success. This allows people to make informed decisions about their careers rather than being blindsided by "disruption."

Development over tenure. Instead of rewarding longevity, organizations should invest heavily in helping workers develop capabilities that make them valuable both internally and externally. This might seem counterintuitive—why invest in people who might leave? Because it attracts talent, increases engagement among current employees, and builds a reputation that helps with future recruitment.

Purpose over paternalism. Workers need to understand how their contributions connect to meaningful outcomes. This isn't about creating artificial "family" feelings, but about helping people see how their work creates value for customers, communities, or society. In distribution, we handle products that help retailers serve their communities. That's not saving the world, but it's useful work that matters to real people.

Reciprocal investment. Organizations that invest in worker development can reasonably expect workers to invest in organizational success. But this requires genuine investment—not just training on new systems, but development of transferable skills that enhance long-term career prospects.

The Business Operations Perspective: Contracts Beyond Employment

My experience building and leading organizations provides insight into how employment relationships are actually structured versus how they're perceived. Most employment in the United States is "at-will," meaning either party can terminate the relationship at any time for any legal reason. The "loyalty" that workers often reference was never a contractual obligation—it was a cultural norm supported by economic conditions that no longer exist.

From a business leadership standpoint, what Stankey is describing isn't the death of loyalty—it's the acknowledgment that the implied contract many workers believed they had never actually existed in practice. The psychological contract was real, but it wasn't operationally sustainable. When building teams today, I'm explicit about expectations, performance metrics, and advancement opportunities. This isn't callousness; it's clarity that serves both parties better than implied promises that can't be kept.

From an operations standpoint, the efficiency gains from technology and process optimization are undeniable. At Schott International, we reduced transportation costs by 50% through system automation. At Polytuf Brands, we doubled revenues while maintaining disciplined cost management through strategic technology investments. At Midwest Retail Services, we architected a complete cloud ERP migration from NAV to Business Central while transforming the business model itself—pivoting from a sales organization with fulfillment capability to a true distributor model, growing annual orders from 4,000 to 30,000 (+650%). These aren't incremental improvements—they're fundamental advances in how organizations serve customers and compete in global markets.

But operations also teaches you that systems are only as good as the people who design, maintain, and improve them. The most sophisticated logistics system still requires human judgment when suppliers change specifications, when customers have unique requirements, or when market conditions shift unexpectedly. The most advanced analytical tools still require experienced professionals who understand client objectives, industry context, and strategic nuances.

The key insight from operations management is that efficiency and humanity aren't opposing forces—they're complementary ones. Efficient systems free humans to focus on work that requires judgment, creativity, and relationship building. Humans provide the flexibility and adaptability that keep efficient systems working in changing conditions.

This perspective suggests that the "loyalty versus market-based" dichotomy is false. What organizations need is neither traditional loyalty nor pure transactionalism, but intelligent partnership between humans and systems, supported by mutual investment in capability development.

Looking Forward: Beyond the False Choice

The risk, as researchers note, is that other CEOs will see Stankey's approach and feel emboldened to follow suit, creating a race to the bottom in terms of workplace culture. But there's an alternative path that acknowledges market realities while still treating workers as human beings with dignity and agency.

Organizations that will thrive in the AI age are those that solve the partnership puzzle: how to combine human and machine capabilities in ways that create value for customers while providing meaningful work and development opportunities for employees. This requires leaders who understand both technology and human psychology, who can design work systems that leverage AI while preserving human agency and growth.

It also requires workers who embrace continuous learning and adaptation, who see technological change as an opportunity rather than a threat, and who take responsibility for their own career development while contributing to organizational success.

The death of traditional loyalty creates space for something better: relationships based on mutual value creation rather than paternalistic dependency. But only if we choose to build those relationships intentionally, rather than defaulting to pure transactionalism.

The future of work isn't about choosing between human and machine, or between loyalty and market forces. It's about creating intelligent partnerships that honor the capabilities of both while serving the needs of customers and communities. That's not romantic, but it's realistic—and it might even be better than what came before.

In the end, Stankey may have done us all a favor by forcing this conversation into the open. Now we can stop pretending and start building something that actually works for everyone involved.

About the Author

Rick Kalal brings thirty years of operational leadership experience, progressing from warehouse management to C-suite positions across import/export, distribution, and retail industries. As both entrepreneur and corporate executive, he has built teams and competed successfully in challenging markets while maintaining strong ethical standards. A technology advocate who writes C# applications and implements automation solutions, Kalal combines hands-on technical skills with strategic business leadership. His operational philosophy—"Commit, Execute, Always"—reflects lessons learned from his grandfather about accountability and consistent performance. He finds deep satisfaction in implementing solutions that not only solve immediate problems but create lasting operational improvements.

References

1. Business Insider. "AT&T CEO John Stankey's viral memo says the quiet part out loud about the broken state of the corporate workplace." August 7, 2025. https://www.businessinsider.com/att-ceo-memo-workplace-loyalty-dead-employees-job-security-2025-8

2. Yahoo Finance. "Read AT&T CEO's frank response to employee feedback about a 5-day RTO mandate." August 2025. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/read-t-ceos-frank-response-131234695.html

3. The HR Digest. "AT&T's Full-Time RTO Policy and Stance on Workplace Loyalty Stuns Employees." August 2025. https://www.thehrdigest.com/atts-full-time-rto-policy-and-stance-on-workplace-loyalty-stuns-employees/

4. Medium. "There's never been loyalty in your job| Thoughts on AT&T CEO John Stankey's leaked memo." Joe Graziano, August 2025. https://medium.com/@saysjoegraziano/theres-never-been-loyally-in-your-job-thoughts-on-at-t-ceo-john-stankey-s-leaked-memo-6cb63938ad56

5. HR Grapevine. "AT&T CEO John Stankey issues RTO ultimatum to employees." August 2025. https://www.hrgrapevine.com/us/content/article/2025-08-04-att-ceo-issues-rto-ultimatum-to-employees

6. Kahn, William A. "Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work." Academy of Management Journal 33, no. 4 (1990): 692-724.

7. Rousseau, Denise M. "Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements." Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1995.

8. Cappelli, Peter. "The New Deal at Work: Managing the Market-Driven Workforce." Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999.

9. Brynjolfsson, Erik, and Andrew McAfee. "The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies." New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.

10. Autor, David H. "Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation." Journal of Economic Perspectives 29, no. 3 (2015): 3-30.