From December 2024, employers in Singapore will be required to handle requests for flexible work arrangements (FWA) carefully and judiciously following tripartite guidelines introduced last week.

While post-COVID remote and hybrid work setups have continued for some Singaporean companies, the newly released guidelines seek to standardise the process across industries and employers.

Whether the staff member requests some variation in their location, schedule or volume of work, the employer must provide a decision in writing regarding the arrangement within two months of receiving such request.

The aim is to “maintain a harmonious workplace culture, based on trust and reciprocity,” the Tripartite Workgroup (TWG) said.

The guidelines, however, stress the need to balance workers’ welfare and the organisation’s business requirements. As such, workers and employers should weigh the pros and cons of FWAs.

Expectations from flexible workers

1) Maintaining contact and visibility at work

Supervisors and employees must discuss how employees will stay reachable during work hours. This ensures seamless communication and collaboration despite the flexible arrangement.

2) Setting expectations

Supervisors should communicate expected work outcomes, deliverables and timelines. This includes defining how the employee's performance will be assessed and what conditions must be met for the FWA agreement to stay in place. Clear expectations help maintain productivity and accountability.

3) Regular review and adjustment

Supervisors are responsible for regularly reviewing FWAs with employees, even those already granted, to assess their effectiveness. Adjustments may be made to align with business objectives and accommodate organisational and employee needs. This ongoing review ensures FWAs remain beneficial for all parties involved.

Factors to consider in FWA requests

Employers should evaluate FWA requests based on their potential impact on business outcomes. This entails considering factors, such as productivity, operational efficiency, customer service, and overall organisational goals.

1) Impact on performance

Workers should consider how their contributions to the organisation will be affected by any changes to their work arrangements:

• Will their presence in a different location diminish their team’s output?
• Will signing in for work in a different time zone create silos or delay tasks?
• Will their shift from full-time to part-time work impact other people’s workload?

2) The ability of employers to reallocate work

Employers are urged to keep an open mind and be as supportive of employees requesting flexibility as is “reasonably practical”.

Companies should “explore ways to accommodate FWA requests” by reassessing work processes or reallocating the workload to other team members to ensure client and business needs are met and the company remains productive.

3) Viability for the business

Employers should evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis. If the arrangement appears to be detrimental to business outcomes, employers are free to reject the request.

“Where there are valid business grounds, employers are not expected to approve the same FWAs concurrently for all employees in the organisation,” the TWG said.

To help employees better assess their suitability for FWAs, organisations can explain the following to team members:

• Types of flexible work arrangements and which setups are available by default
• Roles that might not be open to flexibility and why
• Examples of requests that might be rejected
• Expectations from employees on a flexible setup

Avoiding arbitrary rejections

Rejecting FWA requests solely based on subjective opinions or unfounded concerns unrelated to these business considerations is unjust and can create a sense of inequity among employees.

Employers must refrain from rejecting FWA requests for reasons that lack a direct connection to business objectives.

Arbitrary rejections based on personal biases or unsupported assumptions can breed resentment and erode trust between employers and employees. Instead, decisions regarding FWAs should be guided by objective criteria and a genuine commitment to supporting work-life balance and employee well-being.

Employers can foster a culture of transparency, trust, and respect in handling FWA requests by focusing on a fair and business-oriented evaluation process.

Reasonable vs unreasonable grounds for FWA rejections

While employers have the authority to approve or reject employees' FWA requests, it's essential that such decisions are made based on reasonable business grounds rather than personal bias against FWAs. Rejecting FWA requests solely due to personal preferences or prejudices undermines the principles of fairness and inclusivity in the workplace.

Reasonable grounds

1) Cost

Implementing certain flexible work arrangements can impose a substantial financial burden on employers. This includes expenses concerning providing necessary equipment, resources, and support systems for employees to effectively carry out their duties remotely. Such costs can strain the company's budget and financial resources, impacting its ability to invest in other critical areas of growth and development.

2) Productivity impact

Some flexible work arrangements may inadvertently lead to a decline in productivity or output. This can manifest as a decrease in the quantity or quality of work delivered by individual employees, teams, or even the organisation as a whole.

Consequently, this decline in performance may hinder the organisation's ability to meet customer demands and fulfill its commitments, potentially leading to reputational damage and loss of business opportunities.

3) Feasibility challenges

In certain cases, implementing flexible work arrangements may pose feasibility or practicality challenges. This could be due to the nature of the job role, which may require physical presence or specialized equipment that cannot be replicated remotely.

Additionally, there may be constraints in altering the work arrangements of other employees to accommodate the requested FWA, or the need to recruit new staff members to fill gaps created by such arrangements. These factors can render the implementation of FWAs unfeasible or impractical, requiring careful consideration and evaluation of alternative solutions.

Unreasonable grounds

1) Resistance to FWAs

Within some organisational cultures, there exists a reluctance or outright disbelief in the concept of FWAs. This resistance can stem from various sources, including management perspectives and organisational traditions.

2) Supervisor's preference for visibility

Supervisors may harbour a preference for having direct visibility of their team members within the office environment. They believe that physical presence fosters a sense of accountability and allows them to gauge employee productivity. Even when presented with evidence of consistent satisfactory work performance from remote workers, some supervisors may still prioritise the traditional notion of 'seeing is believing.'

3) Organisational tradition

Entrenched organisational traditions or customs can serve as barriers to adopting FWAs. For instance, if a company has historically operated under strict in-office policies during regular office hours, there may be resistance to deviating from this established norm.

Fear of disrupting the status quo or concerns about potential repercussions, such as a flood of similar requests from other employees, may lead decision-makers to maintain the existing policy against FWAs.

Challenges ahead

Introducing FWAs in such environments requires a shift in mindset and a willingness to challenge deeply ingrained beliefs and practices.

Overcoming this resistance necessitates open dialogue, education on the benefits of FWAs, and demonstrating successful implementations in similar contexts. Organisations can thus gradually embrace FWAs while balancing the needs of both employers and employees.