\n<\/p>\n
Meeting discipline matters too. This includes fewer ad-hoc meetings, clearer agendas and respect for agreed hours.<\/p>\n
At the same time, handover and back-up norms ensure that when one employee adjusts their hours, responsibilities are clearly covered, rather than quietly passed on to colleagues.<\/p>\n
Crucially, supervisors and managers need support and training to assess flexible work arrangement requests consistently and on business grounds. They should also signal clearly that using flexi-time would not trigger career penalties. This can be done through informal conversations and verbal assurance by supervisors and managers.<\/p>\n
Where uncertainty remains, pilots and time-bound trials allow organisations and employees to test arrangements and review outcomes, such as productivity, absenteeism and retention.<\/p>\n
Finally, if flexi-time is to function as a form of everyday work infrastructure rather than a special concession, it should be caregiving-inclusive – that is relevant not only to parents, but also to other caregivers such as those with aged relatives.<\/p>\n
One extra work-from-home day will not fix fertility. Instead, giving employees predictable, penalty-free control over their work hours is closer to the kind of \u201cfamily infrastructure\u201d that allows caregiving needs to co-exist with work.<\/p>\n
Victor Seah is Director of Behavioural Insights Centre of Excellence at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS). He was principal investigator in a research done by SUSS and the Singapore National Employers Federation on how employers perceived the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n