Reshoring has had a great PR run. We have seen the headlines: new plants, big incentives, “jobs returning,” and executives standing proudly in hard hats in front of freshly painted facilities. And yes, a meaningful amount of production is coming back to the U.S. for reasons that make complete operational sense: avoiding tariffs, tighter control over quality, reduced geopolitical risk, and stronger protection of IP, just to name a few.

But behind the ribbon cuttings, the story is far more complicated. We brought work back, but we did not grow the workforce to match it. We never had it to start with. The demographic trends did not suddenly reverse, retirement did not hit pause, relocation did not get easier, and technical skill pipelines did not magically refill themselves. The result is a labor market that looks calm from the outside but feels extremely tight from the inside, especially if you are the person responsible for keeping a plant staffed and running, or if you are on the other side like me: the recruiter.

This month I wrote down a deeper look at what reshoring is actually doing to talent availability, wages, plant leadership, and workforce planning, and what senior operators are doing (and not doing) to adapt.

This is my personal opinion, mixed with articles I used to research to confirm or challenge my direction. I am leaving the sources and links to the articles at the bottom.

Quit rates have settled back into the pattern we saw from 2017 to 2019, and because these rates correlate almost perfectly with labor shortage reports, I do not expect the situation to ease much without real structural change. In practical terms this means the following: companies can fill roles, but not always the role they actually want; they can hire, but rarely at the pace they prefer; and when a key person resigns, the impact on the operation is immediate.

When people talk about the manufacturing labor market, they often treat it as one monolithic system. That has never matched what I hear when I speak with candidates and operators. There are multiple labor markets layered on top of each other, and some of them are far more stressed than others.

This matters because geography alone no longer predicts difficulty. Two companies in the same region can be playing completely different games depending on the sector they serve. If your local labor pool is dominated by a sector currently under pressure, you are in a much harder market than your neighbor, even if you share the same zip code.

As my team and I interview candidates and employers, we consistently see that wage pressure has cooled only at the highest level. In the roles that actually determine plant performance, the pressure has barely eased at all. Headline wage growth might look moderate, but the moderation sits on top of a very uneven landscape.

Wage growth is still strongest in the roles that directly influence uptime and stability:

Companies that insist on paying these roles according to broad market averages instead of the tight niche they actually live in continue to lose talent over what look like minor increments. On paper the difference is small. At the hourly level, it is enough to move people. In many regions, seventy five cents per hour still changes someone’s decision. A shift premium of one and a half to two dollars often stabilizes a team for months.

Among all the changes I have seen in the past eighteen months, this is the one that surprised me the most. The reluctance to relocate has grown quickly and steadily, and most of the reasons are practical rather than emotional.

The effect is significant. Leadership and technical searches now operate within a much smaller true candidate pool than any national data might suggest. My team feels this every week. It takes more care, more communication, and a stronger candidate experience from the first touchpoint all the way through onboarding. I even check in with candidates one or two months into their new role because the emotional side of relocation has become a factor in long term retention in a way it was not ten years ago.

In rural locations or second tier metros, this shrinking willingness to move turns certain searches into multi month journeys that require patience and consistency.

There is a pattern I see repeatedly in plant leadership and technical searches, and it often plays out exactly like this:

This pattern is especially common when the hiring team believes demand softness will make hiring easier. That assumption rarely holds true for the roles that truly matter.

Flexibility matters. Many companies have improved shift structures, scheduling practices, and day to day predictability. I encourage that wherever it is workable. But some responsibilities simply require being present at the plant. There is no opinion or ideology involved in this. It is simply how physical production works.

When a candidate raises the question of hybrid or remote work for a role that cannot function that way, I try to address it with clarity and respect. I usually say something like this: I understand the desire for flexibility. At the same time, this role involves leading people, responding to physical equipment, and troubleshooting issues that require you to be there. That tends to settle the conversation without creating friction.

Manufacturing roles are not becoming remote, and setting clear expectations early keeps the relationship healthy. Misleading someone about flexibility only damages trust later.

Sources:

Employment Trends in the Manufacturing Industry

Labor Shortages Remain an Ongoing Concern in Many Parts of U.S. Manufacturing

What 2025 Wage Trends Tell Us About the Year Ahead

Reshoring is very real, but the broader manufacturing environment is nowhere near the sweeping revival some headlines suggest. From what I see in conversations with clients and candidates, the better description would be a controlled reset. There is genuine activity and long term investment, but it is not uniform. Purchasing Managers Index readings have drifted in and out of contraction territory, demand in several major industries has softened, and companies are much more careful in their hiring plans than the public narrative would suggest. On the outside, the momentum looks strong. Inside the plants, the mood is far more cautious.

The Supply and Demand Chain Executive analysis captures something I also hear repeatedly from operators. Manufacturing is splitting into two very different speeds. On one side, companies with heavy capital programs, especially in chemicals, electronics, defense related manufacturing, and certain energy segments, are expanding, automating, and reshoring with confidence. These companies are not chasing optimism as much as they are chasing control and speed. They want shorter supply chains, cleaner engineering loops, more consistent quality, and fewer surprises. When I speak with leaders in these sectors, they are not talking about wage differences overseas as much as others do. They are talking about the cost of uncertainty and the advantage of having critical processes managed close to the customer. In turbulent times, you want to be closer to your client.

On the other side, I work with companies that are tied more closely to consumer cycles or discretionary equipment spending. These businesses are far more conservative right now. They are improving productivity, protecting margins, and delaying headcount growth until visibility improves. They may support reshoring, but they are not staffing aggressively. This creates a situation where two manufacturers located in the same region can have entirely different realities, which can confuse candidates who expect the labor market to feel either hot or cold. In practice, it is both.

The Oransi reshoring story (see link below) is a clear example of what I hear from many executives. Their decision to restart a dormant plant in Virginia had almost nothing to do with cheap labor and everything to do with speed, control, intellectual property, and reliability. When I speak with CEOs about reshoring, the themes are remarkably consistent. They want fewer dependencies. They want predictable timelines. They want more direct oversight of the technologies that differentiate their products. Put simply, they want to run operations on their terms rather than according to whichever disruption strikes their offshore footprint next month.

One of the most surprising market dynamics this year is the coexistence of soft demand and persistent shortages in key skill areas. On paper, a softening macro environment should ease hiring. In reality, I see something very different. A plant may be trimming indirect roles while still struggling to hire a single maintenance technician or controls engineer. Losing one of these people still initiates a chain reaction of overtime, downtime risk, and leadership pressure. Some companies assume slower demand will give them breathing room. What I see is that the breathing room rarely extends to the roles that truly keep a plant running.

Capital spending tells the same story. Companies are not simply building more factories. They are investing heavily in automation, robotics, digital integration, and throughput improvements inside existing sites. When I speak with COOs, they rarely start with headcount. They start with reliability, capability, and resilience. Yet these investments do not reduce the need for talent. They concentrate it in higher skill areas. A fully automated line still depends on the right people to troubleshoot, repair, and lead. In many ways, automation raises the stakes for talent rather than lowering them.

This is the real backdrop for reshoring in the United States. It is not a simple story of jobs returning. It is a story of companies trying to build a more resilient operating model while navigating a labor market that remains structurally tight in exactly the places that matter most.

Sources:

5 Trends Reshaping U.S. Manufacturing in 2025

How Oransi’s CEO Reshored Motor Manufacturing

When I look at leadership hiring in reshoring environments, the same pattern keeps repeating. Companies make major capital decisions and site selections long before they think seriously about the people who will run the operation. Incentives get negotiated, equipment gets ordered, timelines get set, and then at some point someone asks who will actually lead the plant. By then the schedule is fixed, the expectations are public, and the leadership structure has to be built under pressure. It is a predictable pattern, but it creates fragile plants before the first shift even clocks in.

I see this most clearly in facilities that have been reshored or reopened after years of inactivity. They start with a very thin leadership bench. The operation depends disproportionately on one or two reliable supervisors and a single high skill technician. There is usually no real succession plan because the leadership has not had time to learn the talent or develop replacements. The unfortunate truth is that these plants are often one resignation away from a measurable hit to output. That risk is rarely reflected in the early financial models, but I see the consequences when companies scramble to backfill roles they assumed would stay stable.

Flexibility is another area where leadership behavior makes or breaks retention. I am a believer in workplace flexibility where it is practical. Manufacturing jobs today can absolutely be better designed than they were ten or twenty years ago. Predictable shifts, more thoughtful scheduling, clear coverage models, and occasional hybrid options for roles with real office work all help retention. The challenge is that many leaders still struggle to communicate where flexibility ends and operational reality begins. When those lines are unclear, frustration grows on both sides. Candidates expect arrangements that simply are not possible in a physical production environment, and managers are left trying to explain why certain responsibilities require being present at the plant. When leaders set clear expectations early, employees generally understand. When expectations shift or stay vague, people leave.

Another shift I see at the leadership level is the growing recognition that compensation and retention are not just human resources concerns. They are operational concerns. Plant managers who understand their local wage curve make better decisions. COOs who approve offers quickly win talent their competitors lose. Leadership teams that accept the true cost of downtime treat critical talent with the seriousness it deserves. I regularly see searches falter not because the company lacks resources, but because internal decision making is slow and fragmented. In today’s talent environment, delay often costs more than the premium someone was trying to avoid.

Finally, succession planning is becoming a defining leadership capability. In many plants the gap between senior technical experts and the next generation is widening. Experienced people retire faster than replacements are trained. When I ask companies who would step into a key supervisory role tomorrow, many cannot answer confidently. This is not a moral failing. It is a structural issue. But leaders who ignore it end up in reactive hiring cycles that never end. The most successful operators I work with take succession seriously long before a supervisor or maintenance lead announces their departure. They build redundancy not because they expect failure but because they understand how expensive the absence of redundancy becomes in a modern plant.

Leadership is what ultimately determines whether a reshoring investment becomes a long term competitive advantage or a constant struggle. From what I see, the companies that succeed are the ones that build the leadership framework early, communicate expectations clearly, make compensation decisions decisively, and treat the development of future leaders as part of running the business, not an optional exercise.

Sources:

Kearney U.S. Reshoring Index

Reshoring has put new pressure on the leadership and talent models inside plants. It brings production closer to the customer and adds resilience, but it also exposes gaps that were easier to ignore when supply chains were longer and more forgiving. What I see across searches is that the organizations navigating this shift most effectively are the ones that understand how talent dynamics quietly shape their operational reality.

One thing that becomes obvious very quickly is that not all roles carry the same weight. Every plant depends on a few positions that keep the operation stable. When these roles are filled with the right people, the plant runs. When they are not, no amount of technology or capital investment compensates for the absence. It is interesting to see how differently companies treat these roles. Some elevate them and protect them. Others place them into broad compensation structures that do not reflect their actual impact. Over time, you see exactly which approach holds up.

Relocation has also become a bigger factor than many expect. The national talent pool looks large on paper, but the real pool becomes much smaller when candidates are reluctant to move. I see this play out constantly, even in excellent roles with competitive pay. People are simply more anchored than before, and the practical obstacles are real. This makes the experience of the search itself far more important than it used to be. The way a role is presented, the way interviews are handled, and even the way a candidate feels two months after onboarding all matter because there are fewer viable candidates in motion.

Speed has its own role in this dynamic. In a market where hesitation is common, momentum becomes valuable. A clear decision made promptly communicates confidence and seriousness, and it tends to attract the kind of candidates who respond well to decisive environments. Longer processes do not necessarily signal thoroughness anymore. Often they signal uncertainty, and candidates read that more quickly than some leadership teams expect. It is something I notice frequently when comparing searches across regions and industries.

Flexibility is another area where expectations have shifted. Workers appreciate it, and companies that provide it thoughtfully tend to retain people better. But flexibility cannot change the physical nature of plant work. Certain responsibilities simply require presence. When that is communicated upfront, candidates usually understand. When it is softened or left vague, disappointment follows. The plants that handle this best are the ones where leaders are straightforward about what the work requires and generous where genuine flexibility exists.

What becomes clear in all of this is that workforce planning is no longer something to address after the major strategic decisions are made. Workforce depth, leadership pipelines, wage baselines, the character of the local talent pool, and the realities of relocation all influence whether a reshored or expanded plant becomes a long term advantage. The companies that integrate these considerations early tend to have smoother launches, steadier operations, and far fewer surprises.

From the outside, reshoring looks like a capital decision. Once you step inside the plant, it becomes obvious that it is a people decision just as much. And in the conversations I have with CEOs and plant leaders, it is usually the people side that determines whether the investment performs as intended.

Eric Fiklocki
Partner
Ertler Executive Search