Subscribe
Earlier this week, Amazon announced that it plans to return to an "office-centric culture" as its baseline. Its rationale was that being in an office allows the company to better "invent, collaborate, and learn together." All of this was laid out in an announcement that was distributed to its teams globally. On the other end of the spectrum, Twitter continues to double down on working from home. The company, which is currently hiring, is even trying to target talent that may be disgruntled by the fact that their current company is planning for them to return to the office. Two very different approaches. So which one is right?
This is, of course, a great debate right now and the right answer probably depends on a myriad of different factors, some of which are likely specific to the company. Dror Poleg has been trying to think through this problem with something he calls the talent equation (because it's all about talent). It works like this: level of in-person interaction x overall size of talent pool = innovation and financial success. The basis behind this equation is pretty simple. In-person interaction is great for business. This much we know. But you also need the right talent interacting. Allowing remote work is one way of expanding the size of your talent pool. But again, you do this at the expense of in-person interaction.
In-person interaction is what makes cities the great organisms that they are. And I believe firmly in this side of the equation over the long-term. Even right now I find that when I go into the office, my call and Zoom volumes go down dramatically and I have more time to think, collaborate, and do, you know, actual work. This is because many interactions don't require a Zoom meeting when you're in the office. You stop by someone's desk. You ask a thing (usually pretty quickly). And then you go off and action that thing. But I also acknowledge that for some companies, access to the right talent -- and lots of it -- may be a real challenge, particularly in smaller cities.
Like Amazon, I am a supporter of office-centric work cultures. But I do think that Poleg's talent equation is a useful way to think about this debate right now.
Photo by Shridhar Gupta on Unsplash
The City of London Corporation recently published a report called “The City as a Place for People”, which talks primarily about itself and how great London is as a magnet for talent.
But as self-serving as it may be – the report is timed to be ahead of this year’s MIPIM – there appears to be some data and interviews backing up the claims.
58% of “institutional investors” said that London is the best European city for business. Dublin was next at 22%.
A separate survey of 2,568 “corporate decision makers” in Europe revealed that 21% of respondents felt that London was the best European city for business, followed by Paris (13%) and Frankfurt (7%). When asked which city had the best talent pool, the responses were fairly similar.
Also included in the report is a rendering of the City’s skyline by 2026. These are always fun to see. Here is a screen grab:
This week (Thursday) was the deadline to submit proposals for Amazon HQ2. About 100 cities across North America are thought to have a bid in.
New York lit up every single landmark in the city with “Amazon orange” in an “embarrassing attempt” to try and win this thing. That’s how bad cities want this.
I already think that Toronto has won an incredible prize with Sidewalk Toronto. Arguably, it may turn out to be more impactful to this city than Amazon HQ2. It’s an opportunity to define the future of, not just this city, but all cities. It’s an opportunity to lead.
At the same time, I continue to believe that there’s no better place for Amazon HQ2 than here in Toronto. Not surprisingly, our bid emphasized the point that I’ve been hammering home on this blog since Amazon first announced the RFP. Toronto’s key competitive advantage: talent.
Below is an excerpt from the submission cover letter. The entire letter emphasizes our ability to grow, attract, and retain top talent.
Thirty-nine percent of the Toronto Region—and 51% of Toronto proper—are born outside of Canada. We welcome more new immigrants each year than New York, LA, and Chicago combined. We speak over 180 languages and dialects. Toronto is heralded as the most multicultural city in the world, and our labour force and economy benefit directly from our diversity and inclusivity. We build doors, not walls. And those doors open to highly-skilled economic immigrants and international students who can easily become permanent residents and citizens.
For the full Toronto region submission, click here.
Okay, enough about Sidewalk Labs and Amazon. Regular scheduled programming will resume on the blog starting tomorrow.
Earlier this week, Amazon announced that it plans to return to an "office-centric culture" as its baseline. Its rationale was that being in an office allows the company to better "invent, collaborate, and learn together." All of this was laid out in an announcement that was distributed to its teams globally. On the other end of the spectrum, Twitter continues to double down on working from home. The company, which is currently hiring, is even trying to target talent that may be disgruntled by the fact that their current company is planning for them to return to the office. Two very different approaches. So which one is right?
This is, of course, a great debate right now and the right answer probably depends on a myriad of different factors, some of which are likely specific to the company. Dror Poleg has been trying to think through this problem with something he calls the talent equation (because it's all about talent). It works like this: level of in-person interaction x overall size of talent pool = innovation and financial success. The basis behind this equation is pretty simple. In-person interaction is great for business. This much we know. But you also need the right talent interacting. Allowing remote work is one way of expanding the size of your talent pool. But again, you do this at the expense of in-person interaction.
In-person interaction is what makes cities the great organisms that they are. And I believe firmly in this side of the equation over the long-term. Even right now I find that when I go into the office, my call and Zoom volumes go down dramatically and I have more time to think, collaborate, and do, you know, actual work. This is because many interactions don't require a Zoom meeting when you're in the office. You stop by someone's desk. You ask a thing (usually pretty quickly). And then you go off and action that thing. But I also acknowledge that for some companies, access to the right talent -- and lots of it -- may be a real challenge, particularly in smaller cities.
Like Amazon, I am a supporter of office-centric work cultures. But I do think that Poleg's talent equation is a useful way to think about this debate right now.
Photo by Shridhar Gupta on Unsplash
The City of London Corporation recently published a report called “The City as a Place for People”, which talks primarily about itself and how great London is as a magnet for talent.
But as self-serving as it may be – the report is timed to be ahead of this year’s MIPIM – there appears to be some data and interviews backing up the claims.
58% of “institutional investors” said that London is the best European city for business. Dublin was next at 22%.
A separate survey of 2,568 “corporate decision makers” in Europe revealed that 21% of respondents felt that London was the best European city for business, followed by Paris (13%) and Frankfurt (7%). When asked which city had the best talent pool, the responses were fairly similar.
Also included in the report is a rendering of the City’s skyline by 2026. These are always fun to see. Here is a screen grab:
This week (Thursday) was the deadline to submit proposals for Amazon HQ2. About 100 cities across North America are thought to have a bid in.
New York lit up every single landmark in the city with “Amazon orange” in an “embarrassing attempt” to try and win this thing. That’s how bad cities want this.
I already think that Toronto has won an incredible prize with Sidewalk Toronto. Arguably, it may turn out to be more impactful to this city than Amazon HQ2. It’s an opportunity to define the future of, not just this city, but all cities. It’s an opportunity to lead.
At the same time, I continue to believe that there’s no better place for Amazon HQ2 than here in Toronto. Not surprisingly, our bid emphasized the point that I’ve been hammering home on this blog since Amazon first announced the RFP. Toronto’s key competitive advantage: talent.
Below is an excerpt from the submission cover letter. The entire letter emphasizes our ability to grow, attract, and retain top talent.
Thirty-nine percent of the Toronto Region—and 51% of Toronto proper—are born outside of Canada. We welcome more new immigrants each year than New York, LA, and Chicago combined. We speak over 180 languages and dialects. Toronto is heralded as the most multicultural city in the world, and our labour force and economy benefit directly from our diversity and inclusivity. We build doors, not walls. And those doors open to highly-skilled economic immigrants and international students who can easily become permanent residents and citizens.
For the full Toronto region submission, click here.
Okay, enough about Sidewalk Labs and Amazon. Regular scheduled programming will resume on the blog starting tomorrow.
It is showing all towers under construction and all towers with their planning permissions in place. If you’d like to download the full report, you can do that here.
It is showing all towers under construction and all towers with their planning permissions in place. If you’d like to download the full report, you can do that here.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog