Select Page

The future of energy and manufacturing: Is America ready to lead the next industrial revolution?

The headline comes from the giant consulting company, PwC. They do what these types of companies plus analyst firms do so well—send out a questionnaire called a survey, compile some statistics and occasionally comments, and publish a report. I think I know what my grad school professor would have thought about that..but, I digress.

Being a huge firm, PwC’s surveys are of C-suite executives. These people are supposed to have their fingers on the pulse of the market and what’s coming. In reality, they spend their days in meetings and react to the latest price of their company’s stock. 

Be that as it may, here are relevant talking points from the latest survey:

  • Unlike prior eras of industrial change, this one isn’t about technology alone. It’s about strategic reinvention — evolving the broader US economic system with innovation, resilience, sovereignty and national ambition at the center.
  • 93% of industrials and energy leaders say we are on the brink of the next industrial revolution
  • Stronger, smarter, sovereign American industrials and energy players are aligning innovation, policy and ambition

I’d be careful about what to wish for. I’ve been researching for an essay on the results of Germany’s vaunted Industrie 4.0. Their industrial sector is languishing at this time due in large part to global economic upheavals.

The press release included this spin:

The business of America is business (supposedly a President Calvin Coolidge quote) — entrepreneurial, risk-ready and opportunity-driven. When industry seizes not just one innovation but dozens and fuses them together, the result isn’t transformation. It’s creation.

That’s what’s happening now. US industrials and energy leaders, including manufacturers, power providers and utilities, are building something new: a self-healing, intelligent enterprise powered by AI, automation and data. This isn’t a patchwork of upgrades. It’s a paradigm shift that could reposition America at the center of global industrial leadership.

I’m sorry, but there is no other news coming my way that would suggest this optimism. It takes a few things for a shift. Someone must design a product that people want and will pay for, then someone must manufacture it.

America’s industrial strength is already backed by hard metrics. Take manufacturing. In 2024, US manufacturers contributed $2.91 trillion to the economy — more than the GDP of entire countries like France or the UK. If it stood alone, the US manufacturing sector would rank as the eighth-largest economy in the world. That’s just one pillar. Add in energy and utilities powering this transformation, and the scale of reinvention is even greater. This isn’t recovery, it’s reinvention at scale, positioning the US firmly at the center of global industry — and the next wave of innovation.

Sounds like marketing from the Manufacturer’s Association or something—well, actually, it is.

PwC’s new Future of Industrials Survey of 500+ industrials and energy C-suite leaders reveals that 93% say we’re on the brink of the next industrial revolution. Political winds may change, but this movement won’t. The convergence of pandemic-era supply chain failures, geopolitical conflicts and automation breakthroughs has locked in a long-term industrial reset. Tariffs are simply one tool. The deeper commitment is to prosperity and security through making critical goods at home.

So far, reports on the effects of tariffs show mixed results. Although it is true that tensions between the Chinese and American governments make it difficult for American manufacturers to do business there. And other costs show the futility of long, complex supply chains.

It is a call for transformation across core systems, from supply chains and intelligent manufacturing to data integration and regulatory agility. Roughly three out of four (73%) executives believe that companies failing to embrace industrial realignment will be irrelevant within a decade. That is not hyperbole. It is the new reality for leaders facing seismic shifts in technology, policy and global competitiveness.

Most industrials and energy executives (95%) say organizations need to focus on redefining their market approach rather than simply adapting to current conditions. And they are betting big on transformation. Ninety-two percent believe the industrial sector will progress faster than the technology sector in the next five years. That level of confidence is fueling the momentum behind this new wave of reinvention. This is not about incremental improvement. It is about seizing the opportunity to rethink everything: business models, supply networks, production ecosystems and customer engagement strategies.

Realize that this is all belief of industrial C-suite populations. I’m happy they are optimistic. Somehow, I’m not so sanguine. Reports reveal that many of these initiatives are not performing. I think these executives are going to have to sharpen their management and leadership skills.

Partner and analyst Ryan Hawk on his blog discusses what he calls five unstoppable forces.

1.) Supply chains and production are coming closer to home. Leaders have learned a hard truth: distance creates risk. While tariffs are an important consideration, supply chain proximity is a strategic necessity in this new era, not just a reaction to policy or government incentives. It’s about being faster to market, having more control and eliminating uncertainty, and those will be a business priority no matter the geopolitical climate. 

2.) AI is reshaping the workforce. Forget the idea that AI will slowly creep into operations or existing processes. It’s already here and it’s changing the definition of work across the Industrials & Energy sectors. 90% of leaders say AI is causing them to fundamentally rethink job roles across their organization. Not to replace human workers, but to augment and evolve their roles. 

3.) Factories and supply chains are becoming modular and self-aware. Systems that once took years to build, and couldn’t adapt once they were in place, are being replaced by modular plug-and-play operations designed to flex in real time. 

4.) Energy is a strategic asset and a competitive edge. Energy has evolved to be a differentiator, not just a utility. Yet only 38% of executives say current infrastructure is capable of meeting evolving needs over the next five years. In response, companies are rewriting the energy equation. 80% plan to increase their investment in energy resilience over the next three years, and 34% expect a majority of their production to be energy independent by 2030.

5.) Intelligent and automated systems will be table stakes. Leadership is increasingly measured not by headcount or capacity, but by intelligence and automation. Across the board, executives are investing in smart systems to future-proof operations and unlock autonomy. 81% of executives are planning to scale up investment in robotics in the next three years, and 44% expect to convert more than 60% of their operations to intelligent systems by 2030. 

CEOs Want Company to Adopt AI, Do They Get It?

The New York Times this morning published an article about CEOs wanting their companies to adopt AI.

Reminds me of several times over the past 25 years of my career. CEOs read an article maybe from major media or TV about a new technology. Ah, that’ll give us an edge, some think. Others, we need to jump on this before our competitors get it. 

Mostly, they didn’t really have a clue what the technology could really do. Or how to implement it. Or what the costs would be. Or what real benefits, as opposed to media speculation about benefits, could be accrued. 

Reports and studies are released in a steady stream about projects delayed or not succeeding due to lack of a plan, lack of accountability, lack of executive sponsorship, and the like.

You can read the headline as artificial intelligence (undefined) or automation or robotics.

The time really requires something between over reacting and too much analysis. Choose an executive champion who will begin methodically building a team.

Phoenix Contact Announces U.S. Leadership Transition

For my money, Jack Nehlig has been one of the premier leaders in the control and instrumentation market in the US. He has led Phoenix Contact US through the difficult market transitions of the past 15-20 years. I’ve enjoyed his Tweets (remember those) and LinkedIn posts that are always positive and supportive. He is retiring at the end of the year. And thus a leadership transition.

Phoenix Contact USA announced a new management structure and leadership team, effective September 1, 2024. This board-based leadership change supports the successful maturation of the U.S. company as a Group Center of Competence and the overall Business Area (BA) structure that Phoenix Contact first implemented in 2016. It also provides a seamless transition in preparation for the retirement of Jack Nehlig, President of Phoenix Contact USA, who is retiring on December 31, 2024, after 23 years with the company. 

  • Heath Scoggin has been promoted to President of the BA Device Connectors and will lead Phoenix Contact Development and Manufacturing legal entity, Process Management, and Quality. 
  • Kevin Zak has been promoted to President of the BA Industrial Components and Electronics and will lead the Phoenix Contact U.S. Sales Subsidiary legal entity, Logistics, Government Relations, and ESG.
  • Davis Mathews has been promoted to President of the BA Industry Management and Automation and will lead the Phoenix Contact Holdings legal entity, Human Relations, Digitalization, IT, Purchasing, and Facilities. 
  • In addition, Kyle Bordner was promoted to Vice President of Finance and Risk Management, replacing David Russo, who retired in May. 

Scoggin, Zak, Mathews, and Bordner have been named members of both the Phoenix Contact USA Executive Board and the Management Board. The Phoenix Contact Management Board will also include Marian Roldan, Senior Vice President of Human Relations, and Doug Ferguson, Senior Vice President of Americas Operations Services. 

Good Feel For People

The human resources department of one large company I worked for traveled to the various manufacturing sites leading management seminars. I can still remember one where they put up one of those consultant’s 2×2 matrices. They compared “feel for people” versus “intellectual control of emotions.” Good and Poor. Of course, the top right box was good in each category. 

That is something for which we can strive as leaders of organizations whether non-profit, or profit, or church, or wherever 3 or more are gathered for a task.

I thought of this when I read Axios (one of my two favorite news sources) Finish Line newsletter about the private equity firm KKR. If you don’t know KKR, think the Richard Gere character in Pretty Woman.

The big picture: KKR operates what it calls “Centers of Excellence,” including one focused on human capital. One of its goals is to learn how to identify great leaders, whether current CEOs or future CEOs, for the sake of driving outsized returns. The focus is more on psychological traits than on résumés. Behind the scenes: KKR has discovered that having a genuine sense of empathy might be the key identifier, according to Pete Stavros, KKR’s co-head of global private equity. For example, does the person exhibit a sense of responsibility not only for shareholders and top executives, but also for the most junior of employees? In other words, a North Star of: “My people, my problem.” Other signals could include a company’s safety record or employee engagement scores. The bottom line: This might sound squishy, particularly to spreadsheet obsessives. But private equity might be one of the last industries to recognize the importance of corporate culture — and how that culture can beget capital.

Podcast Manufacturing Leadership

Gary offers observations on the continuing saga of former GE executives running Boeing changing the culture from engineering-driven to Wall Street-driven. Also thoughts on good manufacturing leadership.

Some people have nothing to lose in the game. They have no skin in the game.

The Milton Friedman school of economics says top executive need to have stock in the company so that they have skin in the game. Of course, that led to excesses like Jack Welch at GE and his protogés at 3M, Boeing, Home Depot who all ruined thriving companies by playing financial games in order to maximize their stock options in short term gains. Did they have skin in the game? Well, would they lose anything if the stock didn’t perform? Probably not much since they also negotiated large salaries and golden parachutes.

Skin in the game would have been if Elon Musk had sat inside the Cybertruck when they shot at it to test the bulletproof construction.

Soul in the game is when you care. Robert Pirisig writing his essay on quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance talked of the mechanic who cared about the quality of his work. Obviously the executives at Boeing had no soul in the game.

Follow this blog

Get a weekly email of all new posts.