‘There’s no clear signal’: Bosses, workers in S’pore look for sweet spot in return-to-office rules

Are companies using tracking systems to keep tabs on how much time employees spend in the office? Is in-office attendance tied to one’s work performance? Can employees get into trouble for refusing to return to the office?

The answers to these questions still appear muddy against the backdrop of companies trying to nudge employees to return to the office, citing better collaboration and connection with colleagues compared with working remotely.

It appears that companies are trying to redefine their policies and processes, said Ms Cheng Wan Hua, head of talent analytics at professional services firm Aon in South-east Asia.

“Naturally, it takes time to work out what works and what doesn’t. It’s also not that easy to transplant what worked in one organisation into another,” she said.

Two employees who work at a US big tech firm in Singapore said that while the company has a badge tracking system, they are uncertain about “how much of it is tied to (work) performance”.

“There is no clear signal about it,” said one of the employees, who spoke to The Straits Times on condition of anonymity.

In the past two months, Grab and Amazon announced that employees have to return to the office five days a week. Starbucks too has reportedly threatened to fire corporate staff who do not go to the office three days a week.

When asked, a Starbucks spokesperson said its Singapore office has a different policy as it is a licensed market. Corporate employees in Singapore are required to go into the office four days a week, with the option to work from home on Wednesday or Friday. Employees also have flexible hours.

Meanwhile, more than 500 Amazon employees sent a letter to the chief executive of its Amazon Web Services unit, urging the reversal of a full return-to-office policy, which takes effect in January 2025.

Amazon did not elaborate when asked about its plan to enforce the policy in the Singapore office, pointing ST to its chief executive Andy Jassy’s note published on the company’s website on Sept 16.

He wrote: “But, before the pandemic, it was not a given that folks could work remotely two days a week, and that will also be true moving forward – our expectation is that people will be in the office outside of extenuating circumstances or if you already have a Remote Work Exception approved through your s-team leader.”

Observers say the inertia of not returning to the office remains high in Singapore.

Nearly half of Singapore’s workforce said they would leave jobs that require them to work in the office more often, according to an April survey by recruitment company Randstad. Gen Zers, or those aged between 18 and 26, are most likely to feel this way, at 69 per cent.

“It feels like a step back because I think hybrid work is the future. For tech companies, it seems ironic to go back fully for five days a week. It’s just sad as we feel there are many capable and talented employees who may be unable to adhere to the five-day policy and may leave the company because of it,” an employee from a US big tech firm told ST.

TSMP Law Corporation partner and head of employment Ian Lim said firms need to understand that since the Covid-19 pandemic, many employees have had certain expectations of being able to work from home when the need arises.

And when these expectations are unmet, employees could feel as if they would rather work at another workplace that does not have such rigid return-to-office rules, he said.

He also encouraged companies to consider factors such as staff morale and reputation.

“A company can make it mandatory for all its employees to be in every day from 9am to 5pm, but is the company going to be very popular with its employees if the work doesn’t require this?”

Navigating the grey areas

Depending on the nature of the jobs, enforcing return-to-office rules so strictly may be a challenging concept to grasp.

Ms Cheng said: “Certain roles require an in-person presence in the office, but defining the necessity for in-person presence may at times be grey and therefore open to allegations of unfairness.”

This is further complicated when companies do not have clearly defined metrics to measure employee productivity.

Supervisors then could apply their own heuristics about what productivity looks like, including physical presence in the office, Ms Cheng said.

Despite challenges, there are bosses and workers who seem to have found a sweet spot in coming up with a formal return-to-office policy without creating much unhappiness.

For instance, a J.P. Morgan employee who did not want to be named said he was okay with having his attendance and return-to-office days tracked.

Taking public holidays and leave days into account, the Singapore employee said the system allows him to check if he has met the return-to-office requirements over a 12-week period. Managers have access to these metrics too, he said.

“I don’t think it’s an issue to be tracked, since I have no issue returning to the office three times a week. We used to return five days a week pre-Covid-19, so having the two days to work from home is somewhat an entitlement and privilege.”

ST understands that the tracking system is used for business resiliency and security purposes.

Some companies have employed a softer approach in encouraging employees to go into the office.

Account manager Joanna Cho, whose work requires her to be on site for programmes and events during the week, said her company grants her the flexibility to pick her preferred days to work from home.

She is part of the corporate and industry partnerships team at the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC).

NVPC’s director of people and corporate services Amy Tan said adopting a trust-based work model has enabled its employees to work at least three days in the office and, subject to business requirements, up to two days remotely from any location within Singapore.

“We believe that such a work model has helped to attract and retain high-calibre and high-performing talent who value the flexibility,” she said.

Another example is Hilton Hotels in Singapore, which implemented a new initiative in January for hotel staff to utilise their paid time off by the hour.

For instance, the GoFlexi! initiative allows them to take three hours off on a Friday, for example, instead of applying for half-day or full-day leave.

The hotel’s corporate employees are encouraged to return to the office as much as possible.

Hilton’s senior vice-president for human resources in Asia-Pacific Patsy Ng said that while its return-to-office policies are not mandated, the company encourages its employees to be present in the office to “bring a fully human experience to life”.

“We’ve observed that many actively choose to return, drawn by the opportunities for meaningful in-person connections, collaboration and a sense of community that our workplace culture creates.”

Penalising rule breakers

Employment lawyers said employees who refuse to adhere to their company’s return-to-office policy can land themselves in trouble.

According to Ms Amarjit Kaur, head of employment law at law firm Withers KhattarWong, some companies have hinted at an “accountability process”, which may include the use of various disciplinary measures on staff who refuse to comply with return-to-office policies.

Such measures range from verbal or written warnings to more severe actions such as suspension or demotion, which could lead to one’s employment being terminated, she said.

Non-compliance can also be factored into employment decisions such as promotions, pay rises, bonuses or shortlisting for retrenchments, she said.

Mr Lim said that if the return-to-office policy is compulsory, employees who try to push the boundaries on this could be likened to someone who purposely hands in an assignment from the boss late or does not do it at all.

“If it’s disobeying a mandatory company policy, it can result in disciplinary action or even termination, bearing in mind that Singapore allows for at-will contractual termination by giving notice or payment in lieu of notice.”

Having said that, he noted it is going to be “comparatively rare” for a company to fire someone purely because an employee does not come into the office as often as required.

“Even if the company has the right to fire the employee, it’s whether it wants to or not – given that it might risk becoming known as the employer that fires its employees for not coming into the office enough,” he said.

While the new Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests coming into effect from Dec 1 may be seemingly contradictory to the enforcement of return-to-office rules, Mr Lim believes the two concepts do not have to be inconsistent.

The new guidelines, which introduce a process for staff to formally make flexi-work requests, will require bosses to consider and respond to them properly.

“The return-to-office mandate can be a general policy for all or most employees. Then, the whole idea of flexible arrangement requests is layered over on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

That means even in the face of return-to-office policies, an employee should be free to make a flexible work arrangement request, providing reasons such as caregiving duties or health constraints to work from home, he added.

A Grab spokesperson said in response to ST queries that while the company will be transitioning back to a five-day work arrangement from Dec 2, it will continue to provide flexibility to employees who need it.

“We remain committed to our FlexWork policy that gives employees the option to arrange remote or flexible work as needed.”

As a starting point, Ms Cheng recommends that employers review formal and informal policies that are already in place, and evaluate how workers would be impacted by a flexible work arrangement policy.

When there is a lack of transparency, she said, employees may assume that not being physically present in the office could be used negatively against them when it comes to talent decisions such as promotion opportunities.

“The greatest barrier to a successful flexible work arrangement programme is that performance management systems are often seen to be subjective, and decisions can sometimes appear arbitrary,” she said.

Tips for bosses on getting workers to return to office

What should employers do to adopt a balanced approach that works best for their business? Here are practical tips from Ms Amarjit Kaur, head of employment law at law firm Withers KhattarWong, on what to do (and not do) when it comes to enforcing return-to-office policies.

1. Provide clear communication about the rationale behind the policy and what is expected of employees.

2. Consider a carrot-and-stick approach – incentivising employees with career development opportunities, rewards and recognition; and deterring non-compliance by clearly spelling out the spectrum of consequences.

3. Avoid using infractions of return-to-office policy as a lever to terminate employment. Companies could run a serious risk of eroding their workforce and losing talent to another workplace or sector.

4. Create an appealing and safe office environment, leveraging workplace technology and fostering trust based on feedback.

5. Refrain from adopting a blanket one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to handling requests for flexible work arrangements. When employees raise such requests, these should not be denied outright as being in contravention of return-to-office rules.

6. Be prepared to discuss alternative arrangements that may be mutually beneficial if specific flexi-work requests cannot be accommodated for business reasons. This also means considering flexi-load and flexi-time options such as staggered start times, shift work and job sharing.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

More ways proposed for victims of online harms to seek redress, including getting content blocked