Job satisfaction (or lack thereof) has long been a bugbear for some Singaporeans. Long hours, inflexible schedules, and being overworked are a few of the complaints.
A new survey of workers in Singapore, conducted by Milieu Insight, a consumer research and analytics firm, and Intellect, a mental health company, showed that in spite of fewer or equal number of hours spent at work, employees in Singapore are the least satisfied with aspects of their work and life among respondents from the three countries.
The survey revealed that in comparison with their counterparts from Indonesia and the Philippines, Singaporeans rated themselves the lowest when it came to mental health, job satisfaction, and quality of life.
Given that Indonesia and the Philippines are developing countries with a lower quality of life on paper than first-world Singapore, the results of this survey are somewhat surprising.
Apparently, things are so bad that netizens have told an expatriate hoping to come to Singapore that it was not worth it to move to Singapore, even for a higher salary.
Another survey, the Randstad survey, discovered that four out of every five of the workers who participated in the survey said that flexible work hours were important for them, and 41 per cent said they would refuse a job that did not allow them to choose their own working hours.
While these surveys did not cover why Singaporeans felt the way they did, it is clear that Singaporeans are craving work-life balance and some measure of control over the amount of time they spend at work.
Yet, in the same vein, there have been increasing concerns that Singaporeans are losing out to foreigners in the job market. In response to recent news of a projected increase in the demand for job positions in the last quarter of the year, Singaporeans are calling on companies, urging them not to prioritise foreign workers.
Judging by the results of a survey of 510 companies, ManpowerGroup Singapore found that fifty per cent of companies are projected to increase their hiring in the fourth quarter in order to address vacancies. This indicates that there should be sufficient jobs for Singaporeans. But yet, the perception that Singaporeans are losing out in the job market persists.
How does this gel with Singaporeans turning down jobs that do not give them flexibility?
On the one hand, we may have employers looking for someone who is prepared to work in a traditional setting (on site) for long hours and lower wages while on the other hand, we have a workforce who is increasingly wanting more control over how and when they work.
How do we bridge the divide?
Instead of both sides sticking resolutely to their guns, could we not find some common ground? There needs to be a mindset shift.
For employers, the answer cannot simply be to hire foreigners from developing countries or to demand their employees to continue working in a traditional setting as if the pandemic never happened when we actually have the technology to allow people to work productively from home.
As for employees, our laundry list of demands must also be reasonable. Employees need to work out what it is that is most important to them and be willing to compromise. If working from home is important to you, it is imperative for you to prove that you are still meeting your deadlines and keeping engaged. If you only want to work 4 days a week, then you have to be prepared to take a pay cut and not expect to be paid the same as someone who is working in the office for the entire week.
The argument cannot be so binary on either end. The pandemic has shown that with the right technology in place, many jobs can be just as productive when done from home. Why then are some employers refusing to change their mindset?
In the same vein, employees also need to be realistic about their expectations. An example of how this divide has been somewhat bridged is that of Facebook which announced that while it would give all employees the option to work remotely even after the pandemic, their pay packet might decrease if they move to a less-expensive area.
From a Singaporean perspective, the rising transport cost might be a factor to consider. Minister for Transport, S Iswaran, has said that the review of the public transport fare formula will take into consideration the best option for cost-sharing between existing commuters and future generations of taxpayers for subsidised public transport.
While the Government is aware of the price increments and is seeking to reduce the hit, some of the costs will be passed on to commuters. With that in mind, employers may want to take this into consideration when it comes to salary packages. For example, employees who want greater flexibility be paid less because they have fewer transportation costs and employers who insist on face time should pay more to take into consideration the increase in transportation costs.
Do you want to be paid a top dollar, or is flexibility more important? You cannot have everything, but you can have everything that you REALLY want. So, work out what it is that you REALLY want. This cuts both ways.
For employers who are sticking to old ways, why not move with the times and decide what it is that you really want as well? Is it that important that you see your employees in the flesh daily?
As long as they are managing their workload effectively, does it matter where they physically are? Reducing your physical headcount could reduce the costs of running your office and help you reduce your operational costs. In an age of rising energy prices, perhaps this is not such a bad thing.
The issue isn’t one about who is right or wrong. It is about recognising and understanding all relevant concerns and looking for consensus.
Ultimately, we all want to lead fulfilling and happy lives. How we best achieve this is to look for common ground. To end on a cheery note, this publication has compiled a list of things that can help to improve our lives.
To what extent can the Government take these suggestions on board?