(iStockphoto/SolStock)The COVID-19 pandemic changed the ways we worked, the ways we shopped, and the ways we interacted with others. It fostered some businesses—online selling, meeting services, and home entertainment—and nearly killed others—cruise lines, air travel, and entertainment centered on large crowds.
Have the changes in the underlying behaviors affecting many industries become so ingrained in employees, consumers, and everyday life that they will not revert to what they were before? The evidence is mixed.
One can argue that the basics of human behavior and economics act similarly to a rubber band that snaps back toward a somewhat constant middle ground even after pandemic-level disruptions. Here’s the argument as it applies to remote work or “work from anywhere”: Remote work, already common, was first required by the pandemic, then encouraged by the growing power of talent over organizations. That power was fueled by both a talent shortage and the ability of tech-aided talent to become more effective working remotely.
Technology will continue to enhance remote work. But will the talent shortage continue? Will inflation pull more people back into the workforce, changing the supply-demand ratio for talent? Will the need for recognition and advancement on the job lure people back to the office? Or have the attractions of working at home changed the job satisfaction equation permanently?
Just as important is how organizations will answer the question of whether great organizations can be built on remote work and remote workers, even those working in a hybrid manner with some time spent in the office. Greg Carmichael, CEO and chairman of Fifth Third Bancorp, quoted in a previous column, put it most succinctly when he said, “We can’t be a great company working remotely… We can get the job done, but it’s tough to flourish.”
Similarly, there is growing evidence that changes in some consumer behaviors occasioned by the pandemic are not all that permanent. While Amazon encouraged us to trade off logistics expense (paid for by someone) against fast delivery up to the point of overnight delivery, there is mounting evidence that beyond that point the trade-off is not working. That is, consumers have come to expect overnight delivery but either don’t need or can’t afford “instant” or 10-minute delivery, even in the most logistically dense markets.
Are consumers missing a sense of community? The number of “dark store” fulfillment centers for 10-minute delivery in New York City is declining, according to one report. The Instacart home grocery delivery service was devalued by 40 percent prior to a public offering. Fast-delivery organizations including Fridge No More, Buyk, and JOKR have either gone bankrupt or suspended operations in the US in spite of $4 billion in venture capital investment last year. This brings to mind the failed investments in fast logistics that accompanied the dot-com bust in 2000.
We are now educating, hiring, and competing for GenZ talent. We will be reading about 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 it’s testimony to the increasing rapidity with which life and work are changing.
Will GenZers’ need for “connection” be any less than that of preceding generations? Has the pandemic so affected their outlook and behavior that they in turn will affect the way work is performed and businesses are organized and led?
Have managers underestimated the need for face-to-face contact? What do you think?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
References:
- Ginia Bellefante, “Is the Era of Instant Groceries Already Over?” The New York Times, July 24, 2022.
- Chip Cutter, “The Back-to-Work Puzzle,” The Wall Street Journal, July 24-25, 2021.
Your feedback to last month’s column
Is It Time to Consider Lifting Tariffs on Chinese Imports?
The several comments on last month’s topic reflect the complexity of the tariff issue, wide differences of responses 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 might alter Chinese interest in democracy and capitalism. That leads to a conclusion that “we need to start quickly weaning ourselves off of the products and resources of our adversaries.” Presumably, that would call for a continuance of tariffs of some kind on Chinese goods and services.
Armando Jimenez San Vicente disagreed, commenting that, “It is time to support trade back again as the main engine of growth ... (with) a positive impact on the world economy.”
Others were not so sure, but uncertain about how to best approach such a complex set of issues. Leonard Lane, with long experience working on supply chain challenges in China, doesn’t dispute China’s interest in regaining “their historical hegemony over SE 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 that might mean for tariff policy. David Wittenberg, saying that he is “loath to offer any advice save to treat the situation gingerly,” saw the US-China relationship as one in which, “The US administration has to balance manifold interests … Tariffs serve some of those interests, while lifting tariffs would promote others.”
Perhaps these responses help explain what is perceived by some as a reluctance by the US administration to address the Chinese tariff issue. What do you think?