More Outcome-based Work Arrangements, Rather Than Time-based Models

Both employers and employees may benefit from outcome-based work arrangements, where the nature of the job allows. However, such a model may not be suitable for jobs that would require shift work or a physical presence. Many professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) already work on the basis of delivering successful outcomes with limited tracking of work hours. As our workforce profile and the nature of jobs continues to evolve, we may expect more employers and employees to adopt such flexible work arrangements.

The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests sets out the process for workers to formally request for flexible work arrangements and for employers to consider these requests on reasonable business grounds. As part of implementation, employers and workers should mutually agree on the outcomes and how to track them.

The Government also supports employers in adopting technology and redesigning jobs through enterprise and workforce transformation initiatives so that work can be done more efficiently. This enables workers to deliver higher value in less time, improving productivity and enabling outcome-based approaches to work.

Even as some work arrangements move towards outcome rather than time-based management, we recognise the need for employees to have healthy work-life boundaries. The Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces sets out good practices for employers that support the well-being of their workers, including setting reasonable expectations of after-hours work communications and communicating them to employees. Such practices could include not requiring employees to respond to non-urgent work-related messages and emails until the following working day.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I have two supplementary questions.

Has the Ministry studied the correlation between flexible results-oriented work models with productivity?

And second, this question honestly was inspired by one of my residents who work for the Ministry. Has the Government, for public servants, demonstrated a work performance management system that weighs heavily on outcomes rather than time spent at work, meaning a Government-led work performance management system?

I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. For the first supplementary question, there is no specific particular study that will measure specific outcomes between flexible work arrangements and key performance. That is from the Ministry side.

But our survey results, from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and also from our workers, show that flexible work arrangements are ranked number one in terms of preferred requirements, compared to other leave and even financial contributions. They appreciate such arrangements because they will have flexibility in taking care of their children, they have flexibility in providing caregiving needs as required.

In fact, this conversation should be between workers and employers as well – having a good conversation on what are the performance work outcomes required, and what are the tools and redesigning of the workplaces required to achieve productivity increases.

In terms of performance, we leave it to the market and also the employers to determine what is the best performance and what is value for money.

For the second one, within Ministries in terms of requiring work performance, I think, there is always a balance. Also, because within the Government, there is a myriad of roles. Some require presence and time, especially for security personnel, and some are mainly pure outcomes. And so, we work in very different ways and based on that tiering, we leave it to the supervisors to manage the staff and how they deliver those outcomes.

If I may build very quickly on the second supplementary question by Member Valerie Lee. I am wondering the extent to which the Government actually monitors and ensures that Government-affiliated institutions, such as our autonomous universities, also respect these kinds of flexible work arrangements.

I ask because of news reports that speak to how academics at the National University of Singapore, where outcomes are certainly the main way that we measure academic performance and are nevertheless forced to spend a significant amount of time in the office even though outcomes ultimately are the way that their performance is measured.

I thank Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for that particular question. In fact, flexible work arrangements are considered pretty nascent. I think the entire job market is also learning. Employers and employees are learning how to make those requests and employers are learning different ways in terms of flexi load – whether it is flexi place, flexi time as well – on how they deliver flexible work arrangements.

On that note, in terms of the autonomous universities, it is an autonomous university. We leave it to the universities to decide how they determine outcomes and performance, and we encourage them to have deeper conversations with their employees and staff on their flexible work arrangements. And if they need any help, they can always approach Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices; if not, Institute for Human Resource Professionals; if not, then NTUC. There are many toolkits and resources made available online and we are happy to help with that conversation.