\n<\/p>\n
To look into how formal remote work arrangements translate to real-world outcomes, researchers Wang Senhu from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Chung Heejung from King\u2019s College London investigated how managers in Singapore perceive employees who work remotely.<\/p>\n
In their 2022 survey \u2013 which was before the guidelines were formalised \u2013 473 managers were asked to evaluate hypothetical workers with different profiles, including some remote workers.<\/p>\n
The workers were rated on their commitment, productivity, team spirit and promotion opportunities.<\/p>\n
The managers gave remote workers significantly lower ratings than full-time office workers, according to the findings published this February in the journal Gender, Work & Organization.<\/p>\n
The researchers said this confirms theories of a \u201cflexibility stigma\u201d \u2013 the bias that workers who use flexible work arrangements are less productive, motivated or committed.<\/p>\n
They noted extensive evidence elsewhere that flexible workers are generally as (if not more) productive, more loyal, more committed to their jobs and happier with their working conditions, leading to fewer problems with sickness, absenteeism and retention.<\/p>\n
The Singapore-based study made two other notable findings.<\/p>\n
First, the stigma was more pronounced for fathers and childless people than for mothers.<\/p>\n
This is because the managers rated fathers who work full-time in the office the most highly to begin with, and held negative views towards mothers regardless of where they did their work.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe \u2018larger drop\u2019 for fathers is partly because they are traditionally held to the \u2018ideal worker\u2019 norm \u2013 the expectation of total availability,\u201d Dr Wang, an assistant professor of sociology and anthropology, told CNA.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen fathers request flexibility, they violate this gendered expectation more sharply than mothers do.\u201d<\/p>\n
Second, the stigma is stronger when the national context frames remote work as a policy targeted at mothers or parents, and not as a policy for all workers.<\/p>\n
Dr Wang said the framing of a remote work policy is often more consequential to how it is perceived than its actual coverage.<\/p>\n
\u201cEven if a policy is technically universal, framing it around \u2018mothers and parents\u2019 signals to managers and colleagues that remote work is a \u2018special favour\u2019 or a deviation from professional commitment for caregiving reasons,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis reinforces the stigma that remote workers are less devoted to their careers, regardless of who is actually eligible to apply.\u201d<\/p>\n
Despite worries of stigma and the possibility of job loss, there is still strong demand for flexible work arrangements.<\/p>\n
In a 2024 MOM survey, 65.4 per cent of workers said the availability of flexible work arrangements was an important factor in choosing whether to take up a particular job. This was second only to remuneration, chosen by 80.3 per cent.<\/p>\n
Flexibility mattered to more people than leave benefits, job stability, professional development opportunities, promising career prospects, meaningful work experience and other options in that survey.<\/p>\n
And according to recent MOM data on workers who voluntarily took jobs for which they are \u201coverqualified\u201d, about 15 per cent cited the suitable work hours and about 14 per cent cited the flexible work schedule as reasons.<\/p>\n
IHRP\u2019s Mr Sardar said the question of whether an employee\u2019s request for flexibility is a \u201cneed\u201d or a \u201cwant\u201d is best addressed through open dialogue and clarity about the impact of the arrangement.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn many cases, what initially appears to be a \u2018want\u2019 may, when better understood, relate to employee well-being, retention, or sustained performance,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe intent is not to default to a binary outcome, but to explore practical solutions where possible.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n