The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way we work, the ways we shop, and the ways we interact with others. It favored some businesses – online retail, meeting services and home entertainment – and nearly killed others – cruise lines, air travel and entertainment focused on large crowds.
Have the changes in underlying behaviors affecting many industries become so entrenched in employees, consumers and everyday life that they will not return to what they were before? The evidence is mixed.
It can be argued that the basics of human behavior and economics act like a rubber band that returns to a somewhat constant middle ground even after pandemic-level disruptions. Here’s the argument as it applies to remote work or “working from anywhere”: Remote work, already common, was first required by the pandemic, then encouraged by the growing power of talents on organizations. This power was fueled by both a talent shortage and the ability of technology-assisted talent to become more effective working remotely.
Technology will continue to improve remote work. But will the talent shortage continue? Will inflation bring more people back into the labor market, changing the supply-demand ratio for talent? Will the need for recognition and advancement at work keep people coming back to the office? Or have the attractions of working from home permanently altered the job satisfaction equation?
Equally important is how organizations will respond to the question of whether great organizations can be built on remote work and remote workers, even those who work in a hybrid fashion with some time spent in the office. Greg Carmichael, CEO and Chairman of Fifth Third Bancorp, quoted in a previous column, summed it up very succinctly, saying, “We can’t be a big company working remotely… We can do the work, but it’s hard to prosper. ”
Likewise, there is growing evidence that the changes in certain consumption behaviors occasioned by the pandemic are not so permanent. While Amazon has encouraged us to trade the logistics expense (paid by someone) for fast delivery to the next day delivery point, there is growing evidence that beyond that point, compromise does not work. That is, consumers expect next-day delivery, but don’t need or can’t afford “instant” or 10-minute delivery, even in the densest markets around the world. logistics plan.
Do consumers lack a sense of community? According to a report, the number of “dark store” fulfillment centers for 10-minute delivery in New York is on the decline. Home grocery delivery service Instacart was devalued by 40% ahead of a public offering. Rapid delivery organizations such as Fridge No More, Buyk and JOKR either went bankrupt or suspended operations in the United States despite $4 billion in venture capital investment last year. This is reminiscent of the failed investments in fast logistics that accompanied the dot-com meltdown in 2000.
We now educate, hire and compete for GenZ talent. We’ll read how GenZers have attitudes toward work and how they define success that differ from their predecessors. This seems to be the case with every new “generation”. Perhaps this is a testament to the increasing speed with which life and work are changing.
Will GenZers need to “connect” less than previous generations? Has the pandemic affected their outlook and behavior so much that they will in turn affect how work is done and businesses are organized and run?
Have managers underestimated the need for face-to-face contact? What do you think?
Share your opinion in the comments below.
References:
Your comments on last month’s column
Is it time to consider lifting tariffs on Chinese imports?
The many comments on last month’s topic reflect the complexity of the pricing question, the wide differences in answers to the question, and the search for least-worst strategies.
Ron Kurtz questioned an important premise of trade with China, the naïve thought that such trade could alter the Chinese interest in democracy and capitalism. This leads to the conclusion that “we must begin to wean ourselves quickly from the products and resources of our adversaries”. Presumably, this would require maintaining tariffs on Chinese goods and services.
Armando Jimenez San Vicente disagreed, saying “it is time to once again support trade as the main driver of growth… (with) a positive impact on the global economy.”
Others weren’t so sure, but unsure of how best to approach such a complex set of issues. Leonard Lane, who has a long history of working on China’s supply chain challenges, does not dispute China’s interest in regaining “its historic hegemony over Southeast Asia”. However, he stressed the need to recognize “we are in a hyper-connected, radically contingent world… with a need to ‘think globally… and act appropriately’ without suggesting what this might mean for tariff policy. David Wittenberg, saying he is “loath to offer advice except to handle the situation with care”, saw the US-China relationship as one in which “the US administration must balance multiple interests… Tariffs serve some of these interests, while the lifting of tariffs would favor others.
Perhaps these responses help explain what is perceived by some as the US administration’s reluctance to address the Chinese tariff issue. What do you think?
Comments are closed.