Passive Aggressive Management & Team, not much inclusion/diversity on the Corporate end. - Anonymous employee GCI Employee Review

The people and the culture are second to no other company I have worked with. Simply put, they care. Work, life balance is monitored and enforced, in a good way. The benefits from retirement and healthcare are better than any other company I have worked with.

Constant reorganizations within and between departments give "change fatigue" and make it difficult to focus on tasks when you have to deal with yearly organizational changes. The recent addition of a CTO should slow these down and the most recent changes seem thought through instead of simply changing things to change things. The technology that the company uses is vast, very vast; to the point of near unsupportability for both customers and staff. The company is aware of this and have begun to implement steps to counteract, however it is a long process. Documentation is also a legacy issue that is improving, but again, it is a long process.

GCI offers remote work, which is a strong benefit overall. Employees in Alaska can opt into a program that provides company‑supplied broadband and wireless service in exchange for periodic feedback on service quality — a practical example of the company using its own products. Remote and hybrid roles also receive an annual (or upon‑hire) home‑office stipend, and employees outside Alaska can receive a wireless reimbursement. The PTO package is generous: four weeks of PTO for all employees, plus several personal holidays throughout the year. A few widely observed holidays, such as Black Friday and Christmas Eve, are not included, but the overall time‑off structure is still competitive. The work can be stressful at times, and internal priorities occasionally conflict, but the company emphasizes focusing on situations rather than personalities. Most colleagues genuinely want their work to matter and want to see others succeed as well. While not every situation resolves perfectly, the culture generally encourages thoughtful problem‑solving. The 401(k) match is a meaningful benefit, though it caps at 10% of salary. Still, it’s a strong offering compared to many employers. GCI also provides an annual “Success Share” program that ties company performance to employee compensation. It’s a nice addition, though payouts vary significantly year to year. After a recent record payout, expectations for future years should be tempered unless the company experiences substantial growth. From my perspective, compensation is generally competitive with similar roles in the Lower 48. However, individual compensation can vary widely, and that variability can create challenges (see Cons).

Leadership recently implemented a restructuring effort aimed at increasing manager spans of control. Directors and above typically oversee 5–7 direct reports, while managers are now expected to manage 10–20 employees without formal team‑lead roles beneath them. Many managers have stepped up to the challenge, but the workload is often too broad for consistent, balanced engagement with every direct report. The intention was to eliminate long‑standing roles with very small teams, but the pendulum has swung too far and would benefit from recalibration. Compensation is a frequent topic in leadership discussions, and managers have only limited ability to influence meaningful changes for their teams. Employees are informed of their salary’s position relative to the pay‑grade midpoint, but movement within that range can be slow or stagnant. Someone accepting an offer at the lower end of a pay band may find it difficult to progress toward the midpoint over time, even with strong performance. Managers can award small discretionary bonuses, but larger bonuses are controlled by other parts of the organization, which can reduce the alignment between performance, priorities, and rewards.