Covid-19 has transformed the dynamics between work, workforces, and the workplace. The early months of the pandemic (May-June 2020) saw many companies focused on reentry planning, determining how and when they could get office workers back into buildings. Having established playbooks for health and safety, floorplan modifications, lobby management, and new policies for reentry, many companies have since turned their attention to more strategic matters. Along the way, several workforce and workplace truisms—long held dear by many organizations— have been cast aside: it turns out that many offices can keep functioning with large numbers working from home, some employees may actually prefer remote work, and providing an assigned workspace to employees might contribute to less office utilization, not more. Discussions with hundreds of companies during this period have revealed several shifts in workforce and workplace dynamics. While many offices have returned with 10 percent, 25 percent, or even higher occupancy, target dates for more substantial reentry waves continue to slip. Management teams would be wise to use this time to assess each of these shifts to inform plans for how the company will emerge more smoothly from the pandemic. Shift 1: Increased work from home is here to stay. Many employees have demonstrated they can be effective working from home. The sentiment on working remotely continues to evolve, with some workers expressing increased engagement while others are burning out. From our discussions with companies, the trend appears to be a significant uptick in the percentage of employees that would prefer to work from home long-term. A May 2020 Gallup survey revealed that half of remote workers indicated if it were up to them, they would continue to work from home because they prefer it.1 Shift 2: New talent markets await. If the enterprise embraces remote work, especially for hard-to-find positions, it may open up new sources of home-based talent locations not close to an existing office. Word to the wise, however: there may be potential tax and regulatory issues associated with hiring workers in states where the company doesn’t have a presence. Also, recruiting, on-boarding, and training all needs to be managed differently for remote workers, bringing us to… Shift 3: Managing remote work requires work. Mastering a distributed workforce means being disciplined and purposeful about strengthening culture, improving learning and development, and monitoring the right performance indicators along the way. New sets of management behaviors must be developed and then taught to leaders across the enterprise to help teams focus on outcomes, not effort. One of the biggest challenges is to deploy tech-enabled enterprise collaboration that fosters spontaneous connections and spurs innovation. Shift 4: The corporate footprint is probably suboptimal. The pandemic has accelerated reflection about the purpose of the office, including why and when employees will choose to spend a day commuting and working outside of home. This, in turn, has driven an evolution of how some companies are thinking about their footprint, such as concentrated versus distributed, high-rise versus low-rise, and suburban versus urban. Furthermore, many workers have relocated, some temporarily and others permanently. Redfin has noted that suburban and rural home sales are on the rise.2 Given all of these dynamics, the corporate footprint needs a location and talent access strategy that balances cost, accessibility, flexibility, and risk. Shift 5: Post-pandemic, many companies will likely need fewer seats. Before COVID-19, the average daily office utilization was about 63 percent3 , with rates even lower in the consumer business, financial services, and utility industries. Postpandemic, if companies have more remote and hybrid workers, they will need even fewer seats. Untethering workers from assigned locations can further reduce how many seats are needed on an average and peak day. Savings in real estate requires investment and a little patience; most workplace strategies will require some reconfiguration and leases will often (but not always) limit how early savings can be captured. They key is developing the new strategy to improve the employee experience while also enabling cost reduction. If the company’s culture is ready for one of the several varieties of a tech-enabled flexible workplace, it can analyze how to optimize the post-pandemic use of space in order to re-densify and reduce the total cost of occupancy. The impact of each of these shifts will be different and nuanced for every company; some firms will seek to return to a pre-COVID-19 world with little change to their workforce or workplace strategies. Others are speaking openly about the “Future of the Office” and questioning whether employees would ever need to return. For many companies, their reality will lie somewhere in-between, trying to balance what worker surveys are revealing about remote work and return-to-office while preparing to increase the staged return. In the longer term, solving for the optimal and flexible set of workforce and workplace solutions requires commitment from the top, crossfunctional analytics, and collaboration between HR, Real Estate, IT, Finance, and the business functions. Getting it right can unlock an improved employee experience, access to new talent, and significant cost reduction opportunities that can help the enterprise thrive.
For the last several decades, China has attracted production facilities across nearly every industrial sector. But as China’s cost advantages erode and trade tensions escalate, some may be having second thoughts.
As companies transform into purpose-driven businesses, the need to articulate impact beyond financial measures has become more acute.
Location strategy is a significant component of an organization’s broader corporate strategy. Decisions concerning the choice of location tend to be long-term, global, multidimensional and carry high levels of financial commitment and risk. While the goal of leveraging location as a competitive advantage is not a new concept, the site selection process itself has become increasingly complex over time. Emerging factors such as globalization, a shortage of specialized labor, evolving environmental regulations, the need to be closer to customers and suppliers and changing incentives have expanded the realm of crucial considerations. Data proliferation doesn’t simplify the site selection process. Instead, it demands a higher degree of objectivity, analytics and experience to make the right location decision. While it’s worthwhile to understand that the site selection process is a substantial undertaking, it’s not an impossible task; leaders who educate themselves on the key issues are able to avoid common obstacles and pitfalls. Here are 5 questions all leaders should ask when launching a location strategy initiative: 1. DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TEAM? Tackling a location strategy project effectively requires an experienced and cross-functional team with specific technical skills and diverse subject-matter expertise. The team may vary depending on the type of real estate asset an organization seeks to build or relocate. A corporate headquarters may have a slightly different mix of team members than a manufacturing plant or an R&D center. In general, a well-rounded team will consist of top talent from human resources, cost accounting, finance, supply chain/logistics, tax, engineering, real estate/construction and representation from the business units most impacted by the project. Some organizations may also choose to augment their teams with external consultants to help steer the process, provide objectivity and experience and deliver the rigorous data analysis required for these studies. Assembling the right team upon project kickoff enables an organization to gain awareness and understand all the factors and implications involved in a decision.
“It’s important that the site selection team and executive sponsor are completely aligned on critical location factors and their relative weighting as this sets the direction for the data collection and analysis moving forward.”In addition to the right experts, enterprise-level decisions involve C-Suite engagement and consensus. Some teams fail to involve top leadership until the final stages of a site selection study, which could result in a lack of agreement, stalled decisions and additional work. Selecting an executive sponsor and a steering committee early helps promote buy-in and ensures that top leadership is well aware of the hypotheses, approaches and assumptions that ultimately influence the business case. The location choice can have a profound impact on an organization’s financial results, culture, image and talent strategy. Ensuring the team builds consensus helps to enlist executive leaders as champions for the decision—an essential precursor to an effective transition to the new site. 2. ARE WE PRIORITIZING THE RIGHT THINGS? Take, for example, a family that’s in the market for a new home. Their search criteria will be unique to the family’s specific needs, timeline and priorities. Some factors will be easily quantifiable, such as commute times and proximity to schools, while other factors, such as the architectural style of the home, may be more qualitative. Each search for a new home has its own unique set of considerations; this is also 3 true of the corporate site selection process. When an organization decides to launch a site selection initiative, whether for a new operation or relocation, the site selection team should determine the project’s key success factors using a hypothesis-based approach. It’s important that the site selection team and executive sponsor are completely aligned on these critical location factors (CLFs) and their relative weighting as this sets the direction for the data collection and analysis moving forward. Site selection teams should think broadly and exhaustively about all the factors and issues that may contribute to the success of the operation. Teams are often tempted to limit these factors to data that are readily available and quantifiable, such as published average labor costs or tax rates. However, relying on limited data may increase the likelihood that the search will result in a suboptimal location outcome, as a successful ramp-up and cost-effective, long-term operation are dependent upon a myriad of variables that should be assessed among candidate locations. In a similar attempt to gain speed and efficiency, teams may also eliminate regions and narrow the search area too rapidly prior to vetting all the location options. To help reduce rash decisions, the site selection team should implement an agreed-upon process for eliminating locations. This will help teams objectively determine if an option is viable. For example, there will be instances where a candidate location exhibits fairly equal advantages and disadvantages. It’s often best to retain these borderline options, as the subsequent and deeper levels of analysis may result in new insights and alter the relative ranking of locations. When building the initial set of criteria, teams tend to overemphasize economic development incentives too early and treat these benefits as a primary driver in the overall analysis. State and municipal incentives, while perhaps an important tie-breaker between finalist communities, can’t make up for a lack of skilled talent, operating risks, access to customers and suppliers and other vital needs. CEOs should ensure that the team isn’t too fixated on incentives at the cost of operating-cost advantages, issue-free development and long-term access to talent. A site selection study shouldn’t take place in a silo and should be a logical extension of an organization’s overarching corporate strategy. There should be complete transparency about what is driving the location strategy—is it a cost-reduction initiative, market expansion or an opportunity to diversify risk? A successful site selection project should be compatible with the long-term vision of the organization, and the holistic set of CLFs should steer the study in the right direction. 3. DO WE WANT OUR PROJECT TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL? Most organizations have several good reasons to keep the site selection process under wraps. Analysts, media, vendors, employees, competitors, government authorities and other players tend to seize on the news of a corporate location search and can introduce a high level of noise and distraction, both for the project team and executive leadership. However, a few recent mega-projects have made the conscious choice to launch their site searches with public announcements, perhaps seeking to leverage media attention to bring additional gravitas to their project during negotiations. The question of confidentiality is an issue leaders should confront early on, as it merits reflection and debate. CEOs should confront the potential benefits and drawbacks of “going public” with a major site selection: What could be gained and lost? How will each constituency react? Here’s a brief overview of the main trade-offs: POTENTIAL PROS OF GOING PUBLIC
- Encourages communities to self-select in or out of the process
- Appeases a wide array of political influencers
- Provides the appearance of open competition
- Accelerates the introduction of incentives into the process
- Increases complexity and workload for the team (i.e. more submissions)
- Introduces submissions bias early in the process
- Produces a perception of “auctioning” the project
- Affects the morale of existing employees
- Erodes relationship with eliminated locations
- Results in unnecessary responses and effort from locations that will not win