Strategic Blind Spot, What Company Board and Top Leadership Should Do

Throughout the years of my extensive and deep engagement in the field of Facilities Management (FM), I have often reflected on the state of the industry and the challenges it faces. One fundamental disconnect is the lack of leadership engagement in FM decision-making across various institutions, including government, private, and public institutions.
Despite directly influencing 25-35% of an organization’s costs and significantly impacting its holistic goals around organizational performance, from maintaining the built environment and enhancing workplace experiences to ensuring compliance and managing operational costs, FM remains excluded from corporate leadership which is a troubling sign that requires urgent attention. This exclusion is not a minor oversight; it is a strategic blind spot.
The question I have often posed to my peers in the industry is simple: why is FM overlooked in corporate leadership discussions, and what is the impact of this neglect?
We need a paradigm shift to incorporate FM into corporate strategic goal alignment.
The reality, in my experience across global FM bids and subsequent engagements, is that genuine leadership involvement is rare. When it does occur, it is often limited to compliance checklists rather than deep, outcome-driven engagement. With most decision-making hierarchies, FM sits outside the C-suite, treated as a back-end support function rather than a strategic enabler. This misperception results in FM goals being disconnected from core business objectives — whether those relate to asset lifecycle management, ESG ambitions, workplace experience, employee well-being, or digital transformation.
The reality, in my experience with global FM bids and subsequent engagements, is that effective leadership involvement is rare. In only a few selective cases do we see leadership reviews that are more a formality for compliance in the diligence process rather than representing deep, outcome driven engagement.
When FM leadership is not adequately integrated into the decision-making hierarchy, it leads to implications that undermine FM’s potential to leverage its positive impact. It is essential for the Board and all the key players in the C-suite, to engage in FM strategy, execution and impact assessment actively.
With most corporate decision-making hierarchies, this usually sits outside the C-suite, treated merely as an operational function rather than a strategic one. Despite its criticality, FM is often perceived as a tactical, back-end support function rather than a contributor to business strategy. Because of this disconnect, FM goals frequently do not align with core business objectives, whether related to building lifecycle costs, ESG initiatives, workplace experience, employee well-being, or digital transformation.
The limited influence of FM and its leadership in corporate decision-making, budgeting, and strategic planning compromises FM’s role. This situation affects critical areas like risk mitigation, cost optimization, and brand reputation, ultimately downgrading FM’s impact and restricting resources needed to drive proactive improvements. As a result, we often see a reactive and fragmented approach. When FM is devoid of necessary support, the consequences can be disastrous, even if in the short term, supply chains take the crown for cost savings with utter disregard for long-term sustainability, including cost overruns.
This represents a significant strategic macro issue that must be addressed to bolster the true impact of FM. I have yet to encounter FM KPIs included in any leadership dashboards. While there are bold narratives of ESG, FM is often overlooked, despite being the first responder in environmental initiatives, from energy savings to overall awareness.
Throughout my management journey, including my university education and attendance at numerous presentations, I have encountered many impressive strategy and vision documents, even those from top consulting firms. However, I have rarely seen references to facilities management (FM) in these strategy maps. I want corporate stakeholders to understand that excluding FM key performance indicators (KPIs) from the enterprise’s overall KPIs is a significant oversight. When an organization fails to measure the return on investment (ROI) of FM investments such as energy efficiency, asset lifecycle, workforce productivity, and other ancillary expenditures, it is indeed a substantial miss. Furthermore, corporate leadership must recognize that when FM performance is not linked to business outcomes such as reduced downtime, improved customer experience, or talent retention, it impacts the overall performance.
Another critical issue stemming from this disconnect is that leadership misses out on valuable predictive insights from FM data, such as maintenance trends and occupancy analytics. These insights play a colossal role in overall cost management. The lack of alignment can lead to poor decision-making, as this siloed approach is often driven by individual interests focused on costs rather than overall enterprise value.
There is weak alignment with sustainability goals. FM is a frontline enabler of sustainability initiatives, such as energy management, waste reduction, and green certifications. Given the current context, FM should be considered as a vital tool and first responder in these efforts. Yet, most organizations fail to consult FM when developing their ESG roadmaps.
In technology transformation, particularly regarding business continuity and digital transformation such as IoT, CAFM, and smart building solutions, the role of FM is mission-critical. However, many FM technology platforms do not fully integrate with core ERP systems, leading to a fragmented data approach. Besides the operational data issues, most financial systems fail to comprehensively map capex and opex data, resulting in baseline budget errors. Again, in this context, requisite investments in FM technology lag due to a lack of prioritization from leadership.
The situation with Human Resources (HR) and the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) role in talent management and workplace evolution, particularly in areas like hybrid models, employee wellness, and space utilization, mirrors similar challenges. Workspace strategies are often developed without insights from FM, leading to issues in digitalization and workplace transformation.

Talent Development and Workforce Strategy Gaps: Top leadership frequently fails to integrate the FM workforce challenges into the broader HR strategy. As a result, FM suffers from chronic skill shortages, an ageing workforce, and limited career progression opportunities. In the context of upskilling initiatives and leadership development programs, FM personnel are often overlooked, which lowers staff morale and creates issues with retention and service culture. This, in turn, weakens the FM talent pipeline, creating a vicious cycle that degrades quality and heightens operational risks.

Short-Term Cost Focus Over Long-Term Value Creation: FM underspending is a draconian issue, especially when leadership does not actively engage with it. Cost activism driven by short-term interests often leads to FM underspend, with wide-reaching repercussions. FM strategies tend to prioritize short-term cost reductions over long-term value creation, such as asset longevity, resilience, or user experience. Budget constraints, poor transparency in baseline spending, and supply chain pressures driven by efficiency savings represent worrying trends.
It is common for procurement policies to emphasize the lowest price rather than performance-based or lifecycle costing models and credible benchmarks. Most of these policies often ignore credible intrinsic cost principles, relying on outdated or inaccurate benchmarks that lack merit. When contracting approaches are transactional instead of fostering strategic partnerships, this can squeeze FM service providers’ margins, stifle innovation, and diminish service quality.

Lack of Governance, Standardization, and Risk Oversight: Without C-suite oversight on FM governance frameworks, organizations may experience weak or inconsistent compliance with health, safety, and building codes. This can lead to cost overruns, including serious issues on overall business continuity. Often, there is a lack of strategic alignment on crisis readiness, disaster management, and continuity planning, leaving organizations exposed to significant reputational, legal, and operational risks.

It is critical to address the root cause of this leadership disconnect. A legacy mindset persists, viewing FM as merely maintenance or support rather than as a strategic enterprise asset. Siloed organizational structures place FM reporting to administration or operations divisions, stripping it of the strategic voice and visibility it deserves. This also entails a lack of FM literacy in boardrooms. Executives are unaware of FM’s scope, ROI, and strategic importance. Data isolation is also prevalent, as FM systems are not integrated into enterprise platforms or analytics.

The Way Forward: Driving Strategic Inclusion of FM

To overcome these challenges, organizations must:

1. Elevate FM leadership to participate in strategic planning and transformation committees.
2. Align FM goals with business outcomes, including productivity, sustainability, customer experience, and profitability.
3. Establish FM KPIs on enterprise scorecards.
4. Promote FM data integration into executive dashboards.
5. Invest in workforce development and leadership training for FM teams.
6. Adopt outcome-based FM contracts that incentivize innovation and efficiency.

In conclusion, the exclusion of FM from corporate strategic leadership represents a systemic blind spot that costs organizations efficiency, resilience, and growth. Recognizing FM as a strategic enabler rather than simply a cost centre is not just an operational necessity; it is a business imperative.