Target employees say messy layoffs are latest signal of culture shift

Target’s corporate culture, once known for flexibility and collaboration, is starting to show cracks, with employees describing a workplace increasingly defined by uncertainty, poor communication and “business decisions.”

Those frustrations reached a breaking point this week after the Minneapolis-based retailer laid off about 1,000 corporate employees — one of the largest reductions in company history.

The rollout, marred by technical glitches during a video call and mass emails that arrived minutes apart, left many questioning the company’s leadership and direction under incoming CEO Michael Fiddelke.

Current and former Target employees, who asked for anonymity for fear of retribution from the company, said that a clear change in culture has them wondering what their next steps should be.

“I’m scared to reach out to my project teams to find out if everyone is accounted for,” said one still employed worker.

Target was long praised for a progressive corporate culture that emphasized work-life balance and collaboration.

But many employees began to notice a shift to a more buttoned-up environment when the retailer first found itself in the political crosshairs over all-gender bathrooms and Pride merchandise — a change accelerated in January by Target’s decision to scale back its diversity goals.

Then in June, some workers said the rollout of a return-to-office mandate — first for select teams, then for Target’s largest division — was mishandled. Taken together, former and current employees said they weren’t surprised that Tuesday’s layoff process also ran into problems.

Analysts say the layoffs, which come just months before Fiddelke takes over in February, underscore the company’s growing pains and shifting priorities.

“Target has some cover here. UPS, Amazon and others have already laid off large numbers of workers,” wrote Carol Spieckerman, a retail consultant and owner of Spieckerman Retail, in emailed comments. “But for Fiddelke to make this his first major move before he even officially starts? That’s either bold or tone-deaf, depending on how it plays out.”

Other Target workers described a shift accelerated by the recent return-to-office ultimatums, which require employees to relocate to Minneapolis or be considered to have “voluntarily resigned.”

“It didn’t matter that many of us had worked remotely successfully for years,” said a former corporate employee, who like other workers worried about retribution. “Loyalty and performance no longer mattered. What they called a return to office was, for many, a quiet and calculated purge of loyal workers.”

Sentiment was especially low among staff at the Minneapolis headquarters. A Target spokesperson said at the time around 80% of those employees planned to stay with the company. More than 800 workers were let go from the downtown office and Brooklyn Park technology operations hub Tuesday.

The gradual return-to-office push expanded in July, when Chief Commercial Officer Rick Gomez called back the retailer’s largest business unit. Employees in the commercial division are now expected to work in the office three days a week.

The company hasn’t changed its overall policy, but Fiddelke has emphasized spending more time in the office — a stance current and former employees say aligns with the recent ultimatums.

“Target was once a place that prided itself on work-life balance and supporting growing families,” one former employee wrote in an email. “Unfortunately, ‘business decisions’ are taking precedence.”

Spieckerman added that Fiddelke’s decision to “own” the layoffs instead of letting Cornell means he’ll need a “feel-good follow-up move fast.”

Since the CEO announcement, he has emphasized the need to reassert the retailer’s style and design authority and said the cuts are meant to make the company more efficient.

Many of the cuts announced Tuesday affected workers in the merchandising department, according to the list of disclosed positions filed by Target with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. That prompted many to question why the retailer pushed employees to return to the office — disrupting routines and adding expenses such as increased child care — only to lay them off a few months later.

The slashes could appease investors after a more than 30% stock decline this year, as evidenced by a slight bump in Target’s share price, wrote Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, in emailed comments.

But the move also risks deepening morale issues at a company once lauded for its corporate culture, frustrations that many say were only amplified by Tuesday’s chaotic layoff rollout.

“While these things can happen to any company, it does all add to the sense that Target is very scrappily run,” Saunders wrote.

“Now it feels corporate and cautious,” one former designer said. “That’s not a recipe for long-term success.”

After strengthening its diversity goals in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, Target retreated from those commitments in January amid pressure from conservative activists. The move sparked an ongoing boycott from both local and national Black activists and left employees worried the company was abandoning values that once defined its culture.

The company has faced mounting backlash in recent years, more recently after federal filings showed it donated $1 million to President Donald Trump’s inauguration festivities, a move many shoppers described as the final straw after months of controversy.

In 2016, Target’s policy allowing transgender employees and customers to use the bathroom or fitting room of their choice drew boycotts and threats, prompting the retailer to add single-stall, all-gender restrooms. Then in 2023, the company removed some Pride Month products following online criticism and in-store confrontations. By 2024, the collection was scaled back, with fewer items and more selective store placement.

Some employees who feel unmoored by this year’s changes voiced skepticism that Fiddelke’s promotion signals meaningful change, describing it instead as a lateral move meant to reassure investors.