企业正在打破忠诚契约：AT&T首席执行官直言不讳

[丹奇]

前言
在全球职场加速变化的今天，“忠诚”这个曾被视为企业与员工关系基石的词，正面临前所未有的挑战。AT&T CEO 最近的一番言论，更是将“忠诚已死”的观点推到聚光灯下。面对这样的风向，领导者与跟随者的关系将如何重构？组织文化与心理契约会被怎样改写？
本篇由印第安纳卫斯理大学领导力与跟随力研究教授 Dr. Mike Linville 撰写，提供了深刻且独到的视角，不仅批判了以恐惧替代信任的短视做法，也为未来的组织治理提供了发人深省的思路。

企业正在打破忠诚契约：AT&T首席执行官直言不讳

作者：迈克·林维尔博士
跟随力与领导力研究教授 (Indiana Wesleyan University)
2025年8月8日

AT&T首席执行官约翰·斯坦基（John Stankey）本周因一句话登上了新闻头条（见下方链接）：用各种方式暗示，职场忠诚已经死了。

他在发给员工的备忘录中明确表示：公司与员工之间相互承诺的时代已经结束。新的规则是——回到办公室、业绩优先、可随时替换。有人或许称这叫“现实主义”，而我称之为糟糕的领导力，甚至可能是披着外衣的有毒领导力。

⸻

领导力的误判

“当信任被打破时，绩效变成了服从，而非承诺。”——《哈佛商业评论》

斯坦基的言论并不仅仅是一次业务转向，也不仅仅是要求远程员工回到现场工作那么简单。
这是在拆解雇主与雇员之间的心理契约——这种契约不是建立在握手或制度手册之上，而是建立在信任、互惠和共同目标之上。
当他将“忠诚”定义为过时，不只是重新定义职场文化，而是在向每一位员工释放一个信号：你是可以被替代的。
这不是“严厉的关爱”，而是一份“去参与化”的蓝图。
过去二十年，哈佛大学的艾米·埃德蒙森（Amy Edmondson）一再证明，当心理安全缺失时，员工会回避风险、保持沉默，创新也会陷入停滞。

⸻

跟随力的因素

“最优秀的追随者是独立、批判性思考者，他们会积极参与领导者的工作。”——罗伯特·凯利（Robert Kelley）

当然，还有跟随力这一因素。
有效的跟随力并不是被动服从，而是积极参与。
凯利的研究提醒我们，最有价值的追随者是那些会主动思考并采取行动的批判性思考者。
但问题在于：高质量的跟随力只会在领导者尊重并重视下属的环境中蓬勃发展。
剥夺忠诚，用恐惧取而代之，你得到的不是灵活敏捷的执行者，而是谨慎求生的幸存者。

⸻

短期收益，长期损失

盖洛普《职场状态报告》：70%的离心员工将“不信任领导力”列为主要原因。

是的，华尔街可能会为AT&T的成本控制和果断态度喝彩。
但历史上充斥着这样的公司（如安然、希尔斯、柯达）：它们在短期内取悦了股东，却在暗中流失人才、士气和适应力。
盖洛普、德勤和麦肯锡的调查一再证实，员工离职的首要原因是缺乏对领导层的信任以及感到不被重视。
“忠诚已死”的信息几乎等同于为这两种问题开了绿灯。

⸻

权力的盲区

当然，斯坦基并不认为这是有毒领导。
许多高管相信自己只是在让公司与市场现实保持一致。
然而，缺乏同理心的领导，不过是以命令驱动的管理。
有毒领导常常躲在“绩效”和“问责”的语言背后，把自己包装成必要的纪律，而事实上，它正在侵蚀组织韧性的基石：让人们愿意追随，不是因为他们不得不，而是因为他们想要。

“恐惧不是一种可持续的激励方式。”——丹尼尔·戈尔曼，《情商》

⸻

不同的前进之路

想象一下，如果AT&T当时选择了另一种表达方式，既承认商业现实，又强化相互承诺，比如：

“为了保持竞争力，我们必须迅速适应，这意味着工作方式需要改变。但我们对你们的承诺依然存在：我们会投资于你的成长，为你创造一个安全空间，让你能够大胆贡献，并回报你对我们的信任。”

这样的声明并不会降低标准，反而会在尊重与合作的框架内，呼吁大家去达到更高的要求。

⸻

我们需要的对话

“领导力不是掌控一切，而是照顾你所负责的人。”——西蒙·西内克（Simon Sinek）

领导力不仅是设定方向，更是激发他人与你一同踏上征途的意愿。
扼杀忠诚或许能在财报电话会上赢得掌声，但却会耗尽真正驱动绩效的燃料。

所以，既然你已经读到了这里，我想问你：

斯坦基的立场，是大胆拥抱未来，还是在缓慢瓦解AT&T激励自家员工的能力？

我欢迎你的看法，尤其是那些经历过类似文化转变的人——无论好坏。
哦，对了，这里有《商业内幕》的原文链接：
https://tinyurl.com/3z28zpdd

⸻
原文：

Organizations Are Breaking the Loyalty Pact: AT&T’s CEO Just Said It Out Loud

By Dr. Mike Linville
Professor of Followership and Leadership Studies

AT&T’s CEO, John Stankey, made headlines this week (link below) by declaring, in so many words, that workplace loyalty is dead. His memo to employees made it clear: the era of mutual commitment between company and worker is over. The new order is in-office, performance-first, and replaceable. Some may call this realism. I call it poor leadership, perhaps even toxic leadership in disguise.

The Leadership Miscalculation

“When trust is broken, performance becomes compliance, not commitment.” – Harvard Business Review

Stankey’s message wasn’t simply a business pivot nor was it simply about requiring remote workers to return to their onsite workplaces. It was a dismantling of the psychological contract between employer and employee, a contract built not on handshakes or policy manuals, but on trust, reciprocity, and shared purpose. By framing loyalty as outdated, Stankey isn’t just redefining workplace culture; he’s signaling to every employee that they are dispensable. This isn’t tough love. It’s a blueprint for disengagement. Anyone who has been around for the past couple of decades knows that Harvard’s Amy Edmondson has shown repeatedly that when psychological safety is absent, employees avoid risk, stay silent, and innovation slows to a crawl.

The Followership Factor

“The best followers are independent, critical thinkers who actively engage with leaders.” – Robert Kelley

And then, of course, there is the followership factor. Effective followership is not passive compliance. It’s active engagement. Robert Kelley’s research reminds us that the most valuable followers are critical thinkers who take initiative. But here’s the catch: high-quality followership thrives only in environments where leaders respect and value the people they lead. Strip away loyalty, replace it with fear, and you don’t get agile performers, you get cautious survivors.

Short-Term Gains, Long-Term Losses

Gallup’s State of the Workplace Report: 70% of disengaged employees cite “lack of trust in leadership” as a primary reason.

Yes, Wall Street may applaud AT&T’s cost discipline and decisive tone. But history is littered with companies (think Enron, Sears, and Kodak) that pleased shareholders in the short term while quietly bleeding talent, morale, and adaptability. Surveys from Gallup, Deloitte, and McKinsey repeatedly confirm that the top reasons employees leave are lack of trust in leadership and feeling undervalued. The message that “loyalty is dead” practically guarantees both.

The Blind Spot of Power

Of course, Stankey doesn’t see this as toxic leadership. Many executives believe they are simply aligning the company with market realities. But leadership without empathy is little more than management by decree. Toxic leadership often hides behind the language of “performance” and “accountability.” It presents itself as necessary discipline, when in reality it’s eroding the very foundation of a resilient organization: the willingness of people to follow not because they have to, but because they want to.

“Fear is not a sustainable motivator.” – Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence

A Different Path Forward

Imagine if AT&T had chosen a different message, one that acknowledged business realities while reinforcing mutual commitment. Something like:

“We need to adapt quickly to remain competitive, and that means changes in how we work. But our commitment to you remains: we will invest in your growth, create a safe space for you to contribute boldly, and reward the trust you place in us.”

Such a statement doesn’t compromise high standards. It raises them by calling people to perform within a framework of respect and partnership.

The Conversation We Need to Have

“Leadership is not about being in charge. It is about taking care of those in your charge.” – Simon Sinek

Leadership is not just about setting direction. It’s about cultivating the will of others to join you on the journey. Killing loyalty may score points on an earnings call, but it empties the tank that fuels real performance.

So, now that you have read this far, here is my question to you:

Is Stankey’s stance a bold embrace of the future or a slow dismantling of AT&T’s ability to inspire its own people?

I welcome your thoughts, especially from those who have lived through similar cultural shifts, for better or worse. Oh, and you will find the Business Insider article here: https://tinyurl.com/3z28zpdd

作者简介：

以下是 Dr. Michael (Mike) Linville 及其在“跟随力”（Followership）研究方面贡献的简要介绍：

⸻

关于 Dr. Mike Linville
• 任职与背景：Dr. Linville 是美國印第安纳卫斯理大学（Indiana Wesleyan University）组织领导力博士项目（PhD in Organizational Leadership）中的教授，隶属于该校的领导力与跟随力研究部门 。
• 经验丰富：他拥有长达几十年的实践经验——包括 15 年企业界经验，以及超过 28 年的国际非营利组织经验，其中曾在乌克兰基辅领导一所学院 。
• 国际影响力：他曾获得乌克兰德拉马诺夫大学（Dragomanov University）银质奖章，表彰其在该国教育上的贡献 。此外，他创立了一个国际非营利组织，并担任乌克兰一个领导力智库的联合创始人和高级顾问 。
• 学术专长：他持有领导力、情商、人格类型等多项专业认证，其中包括Ira Chaleff 的 “Followership Train the Trainer” 认证项目 。
• 研究贡献：Linville 定期在国际学术与专业会议（如国际领导力协会年会）上发表演讲，也进行组织与个人层面的咨询 。

⸻

“跟随力”（Followership）——Linville 所推动的研究领域
• 开创教科书：与 Dr. Mark Rennaker 合著《Essentials of Followership: Rethinking the Leadership Paradigm with Purpose》，这是首部专门探讨跟随力的教科书，旨在颠覆传统领导范式，引入“purpose”（目标）概念，让跟随者从被动角色转型为积极参与者 。
• 跟随力不是被动：他们强调，真正的跟随力不只是服从，而是积极主动，包括建设性挑战、批判性思维、支持领导者与团队协作等行为，跟随者同样对组织产生影响 。
• 教育创新：Linville 与 Rennaker 在课程教学中推进“跟随力”教育，将其与领导力课程融合，帮助学生重新理解角色与责任，打破层级意识，提升领导与跟随之间的互动和意识 。
• 理念推广：他们提出 “Purposeship”的概念——将领导者（Leader）、跟随者（Follower）、组织环境与共同目标（Purpose）结合构建系统化的领导体系 。

翻译：ChatGPT5.0
编辑：丹奇