The Future of Horticulture Is Human

For decades, horticulture has been driven by a relentless pursuit of efficiency. We have invested heavily in greenhouse structures, climate-control systems, irrigation technology, automation, software, biological controls, and now artificial intelligence. Every new innovation promises to help growers produce more crops with fewer resources and greater consistency.

Those investments have created tremendous value for our industry and will continue to shape our future. Yet I believe many growers are looking for the future of horticulture in the wrong place.

The next great competitive advantage may not be technology at all.

It may be culture.

That statement sounds almost counterintuitive at a time when artificial intelligence dominates headlines, and manufacturers continue introducing increasingly sophisticated automation systems. Yet while growers have become exceptionally good at measuring the return on equipment and infrastructure investments, many organizations still struggle to measure the return on retaining experienced employees.

According to labor research conducted through a collaboration between AmericanHort, Michigan State University, and UC Davis, nearly two-thirds of greenhouse and nursery operations reported being unable to hire all the employees they needed. Workforce shortages averaged nearly 20% of the labor required to operate at full capacity, and many businesses responded by investing heavily in labor-saving technologies. Half of those investing in new technology reported spending at least $100,000 on new systems.

Those investments make sense. Labor remains one of the most significant challenges facing our industry.

But they also raise an important question.

If labor is one of our greatest challenges, why do we spend so much time discussing how to replace people and so little time discussing how to keep them?

Most greenhouse operators would agree that people are their greatest asset. The phrase appears in mission statements, company websites, and leadership presentations across our industry. Yet an organization’s priorities are rarely revealed by what leaders say. They are revealed by what leaders measure.

There may be another reason culture is difficult to measure. It requires leaders to become comfortable discussing topics that are often viewed as “soft” in a business environment. Words like appreciation, trust, gratitude, and even love are rarely associated with greenhouse management. Yet in my experience, they are often at the heart of exceptional organizations.

I frequently tell team members that I appreciate them and, yes, that I love them. Not in a sentimental or personal sense, but in the sense that I genuinely care about them as people and value their contributions. Most employees do not expect perfection from their leaders. They want to know that someone notices their effort, appreciates their work, and wants them to succeed.

Too often, we become comfortable discussing labor efficiency and productivity while becoming uncomfortable discussing care, respect, and appreciation. Ironically, those may be the very things that determine whether exceptional employees stay or leave.

The challenge, of course, is that appreciation does not appear on a balance sheet. Trust is difficult to measure. Respect does not show up in a monthly financial report. As a result, many organizations dismiss these concepts as “soft” business practices. I would argue the opposite. If culture influences whether valuable employees stay or leave, then culture has a measurable financial impact and should be treated like any other business investment.

After all, we carefully track crop turns, labor efficiency, shrink percentages, inventory accuracy, equipment utilization, and production costs. We calculate ROI before installing an irrigation system, purchasing automation equipment, or implementing new software. We routinely justify major capital expenditures by demonstrating how those investments will improve the business.

Very few organizations apply that same discipline to understanding the value of retaining an exceptional employee.

Think about what that grower actually knows.

Consider an experienced section grower earning $60,000 annually. Workforce studies frequently cited by SHRM and Gallup estimate that replacing skilled employees may cost anywhere from 50% to 200% of annual salary, depending on the complexity and specialized nature of the role. Specialized positions generally fall toward the upper end of that range, and I believe an experienced grower would certainly qualify as a specialized position. In fact, I suspect that if every associated cost were fully accounted for, including recruitment, onboarding, training, lost productivity, reduced team performance, and the transfer of years of crop knowledge, the true replacement cost could be significantly higher.

For the sake of discussion, however, let’s use the published estimate. Using the upper end of that range, losing an experienced grower may represent a replacement cost approaching $120,000 before a replacement reaches full productivity. That figure extends far beyond recruiting expenses. It includes onboarding, training, lost productivity, reduced team effectiveness, and the institutional knowledge that often disappears when experienced employees leave.

They understand crop timing, irrigation strategies, fertility adjustments, pest pressure patterns, labor strengths, customer expectations, and countless operational details that never appear in a standard operating procedure. Their value extends far beyond the tasks they perform. Their value resides in the judgment they have developed through years of experience.

Now compare that $120,000 replacement value to a capital investment.

Most greenhouse operators would carefully evaluate the return on a $120,000 conveyor system, irrigation project, or automation upgrade before approving the expenditure. Yet many organizations never attempt to calculate the value of retaining a key employee for another five years.

That may be one of the biggest blind spots in our industry.

Part of the challenge is that many organizations genuinely want to improve culture but often focus on the wrong investments. Free lunches, pizza parties, company apparel, gift cards, appreciation events, and other perks are well-intentioned gestures. Employees generally enjoy them, and there is certainly nothing wrong with expressing gratitude.

The problem is that appreciation and retention are not the same thing.

Research consistently points toward meaningful recognition, quality feedback, opportunities for growth, and strong leadership relationships as key drivers of engagement and retention. Employees who receive authentic recognition, meaningful feedback, and opportunities for professional development are significantly more likely to remain with their organizations than those who do not.

A pizza party can improve someone’s afternoon.

It rarely improves someone’s career.

Employees do not stay because they received a t-shirt, attended a cookout, or were given a gift card at the annual meeting. They stay because they trust their leaders, believe their contributions matter, receive meaningful feedback, and see opportunities to grow.

In my own experience, a handwritten note from a respected leader often carries more lasting value than an expensive gift because it demonstrates genuine appreciation rather than a transactional reward. The note itself may take only a few minutes to write, but the message can be remembered for years.

People rarely save a slice of pizza. They often save a note.

The irony is that as technology advances, the value of experienced people increases.

Automation can move plants. Climate computers can manage environmental conditions. Artificial intelligence can analyze data and identify patterns faster than any grower ever could.

None of those technologies can mentor a young grower.

None of them can build trust between departments.

None of them can create accountability.

None of them can inspire someone to remain with an organization during a difficult season.

Those responsibilities still belong to people.

The future of horticulture will undoubtedly include more automation, more artificial intelligence, and more sophisticated production systems. Companies will continue searching for new ways to reduce labor requirements, improve consistency, and increase productivity. They should.

But I believe the organizations that ultimately separate themselves from the competition will be the ones that begin treating culture the same way they treat every other strategic investment.

Not as an HR initiative.

Not as a yearly employee appreciation event.

Not as a slogan hanging on the breakroom wall.

But as a measurable business asset capable of generating extraordinary returns.

A greenhouse can purchase the same automation, install the same software, and build the same structures as its competitors. What it cannot easily replicate is a team of experienced employees who trust one another, share institutional knowledge, and remain committed to a common purpose.

Technology may shape the future of horticulture.

The organizations that learn how to retain exceptional people will define it.