Geopolitical Headwinds Influence the Future of Work
There was a brief moment when it looked like the lure and promise of remote work—by choice at an individual level or as a corporate philosophy to save money or employ diverse talent—would produce a new business reality. However a new article from Fast Company identified geopolitical forces that are shaping, or even blocking, that reality.
“Before you swap suits for flip-flops, you should recognize that the future of work might not be what you pictured,” the article noted. “An alternate future is taking shape, where geopolitics is shaping who works, the location of work, and the type of work. Driven by national security concerns and a proclivity to support ‘their’ companies at the expense of ‘others,’ governments are reshaping the future of work.”
One trend is the transformation from a trend of open markets giving way to nationalistic approaches, which can rapidly change the environment in which organizations diversify their supply chains, national partners, and even locations. The article points to the ripple effects that technology giant Apple is facing as an example.
Apple's original manufacturing hub for its flagship product, the iPhone, was centered in China. However, economic tensions between China and the United States—Apple’s largest customer base by far—demonstrated the drawbacks of that approach. Apple then began diversifying its manufacturing supply chain by expanding rapidly into India, but China fought back, recalling 300 Chinese engineers who had been stationed in India to facilitate the transition.
A couple of examples have direct implications for security. In 2022, the United States banned security cameras from some Chinese companies on national security grounds. Another involves people fraudulently gaining remote work employment at companies based in other companies for the purpose of corporate or national espionage. The Financial Times documented how Silicon Valley companies have incorporate extra security vetting during hiring as a result.
“Driven by geopolitical objectives, government restrictions increasingly shape who can work on leading or cutting-edge projects, the individuals a company can hire, and how long they can stay in those roles,” Fast Company noted.
Another trend identified in the article is how governments are restricting access to data—either through personal privacy concerns or to protect strategic intellectual assets.
Another Financial Times article described how China locked down its largest academic database, which provides access to 95 percent of China’s academic journals, some dating back to 1915.
Other examples include GDPR and other privacy laws that limit where an individual’s data can be stored—usually limiting it to the country where the data originated. There are also concerns about data security. The United States, for example, has gotten more aggressive about forced searches of electronic devices being brought into the country. As a result, many company executives are travelling with burner phones and leaving corporate laptops at home.
“As countries emphasize sovereignty, data security, and the protection of strategic interests, the data, models, and technology resources that can be used from other countries becomes more limited,” said the Fast Company article.
Finally, Fast Company noted that jobs themselves are changing as a result of the changing worldwide business environment. Increasingly, the article highlighted, the job of company leaders is less about focusing on “teams, operations, or finance” and more about learning how to thrive and influence the geopolitical environments in which companies must operate.
“Companies set up teams to track political developments and quickly present leadership with options,” Fast Company summarized. But those “team members completely dropped their day jobs. With the need to have an ear to the ground and interact with political actors, remote work becomes increasingly challenging.”
