Commentary: Working from home isn’t the flexibility that Singapore families need from employers

SINGAPORE: After Singapore’s total fertility rate fell to yet another historic low, policymakers have called for a “marriage and parenthood reset”. Part of this reset focuses on how workplaces can evolve to better align work and family.

This focus on workplaces is well placed. Beyond direct family support, a truly family-friendly society also depends on everyday norms at work – whether supervisors support caregiving needs, whether flexible work arrangements are treated as legitimate and whether employees trust they can tap on these arrangements without being quietly sidelined.

Flexible work is now more common. Around seven in 10 firms offered flexible work arrangements in 2024, up from one in two before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the Manpower Ministry. 

But there is one misconception that needs to be cleared up.

IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT WORKING FROM HOME

Despite years of encouragement from the government and unions, as well as definitions laid out in tripartite guidelines put in place since December 2024, flexible work arrangements are still commonly associated with work-from-home, or flexi-place, for many.

This was a recurring theme in conversations we had with various stakeholders during our research at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS). Also, when reports emerged that some companies were mandating a return to the office five days a week, the strongest reactions centered on the loss of work-from-home options.

These reveal how narrowly flexible work is often understood, which can make flexibility feel like a white-collar privilege.

It also distracts from other forms of flexible work, such as flexi-load (how much you work) and flexi-time (when you work) that may matter more for parents and caregivers.

While one study of unmarried and childless Singapore residents found that having the option to adjust their place of work increases their stated intention to have a child, other Singapore-based research found that gender inequalities and work-family conflict worsened for women during the COVID-19 pandemic when working from home was the norm.

Our recent review of 88 academic studies published between 2003 and 2025 suggests that such gendered effects held outside of the pandemic, with mothers experiencing greater work-home boundary blurring and disproportionate increases in unpaid labour and strain.

Not long ago, my wife’s company ended its work-from-home arrangements. Her initial disappointment soon dissipated when she realised that when she left the office, she also left work behind.

This points to a broader issue: With the gendered effects of working from home and how it can lead to work-home boundary blurring, reducing work-care conflict will depend more on how clearly work and non-work time are bounded, instead of where work is done.

And for many would-be parents, parents and other caregivers, having control over work schedules in the form of flexi-time arrangements can be more beneficial than the option to work from home.

WHY FLEXI-TIME MATTERS MORE

Our review of the scientific literature finds that flexi-time is associated with improved work-family balance, reduced work-family conflict and interference, and clearer transitions between work and family roles.

Having some control over when you work can enable greater coordination and fairer distribution of caregiving within households. Finally, and of relevance for Singapore’s fertility rate, flexi-time is associated with more positive household relationships.

That said, as with working from home, the effects of flexi-time can also be gendered. If men do not take up flexibility alongside women, flexi time risks reinforcing, rather than reducing, existing inequalities at home.

In Singapore, flexi-time arrangements – where employees can work at different timings with no changes to total work hours and workload – is already relatively commonplace. These include staggered hours, flexible shifts and a compressed work schedule.

A 2025 report by SUSS and the Singapore National Employer Federation found that flexi-time were in place for 77 per cent of organisations surveyed, higher than flexi-place (70 per cent) and flexi-load (26 per cent) arrangements.

The issue, then, is less about introducing new forms of flexibility than about how existing ones are used.

The tripartite guidelines require employers to consider workers’ formal requests for flexible work arrangements. Doing so hopes to ensure a harmonious norm where workers can feel comfortable asking for workplace flexibility.

A 2025 survey by the women’s advocacy wings of the People’s Action Party and National Trades Union Congress found that nine in 10 respondents who applied for flexible work arrangements had them fully approved or approved with some modifications.

Yet, the same survey also found that stigma remains a primary concern for one in three workers when asking for flexible work arrangements.

WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE

If a reset is needed, other steps matter just as much as availability.

Employers can start by making flexi-time options visible by role so employees know what is realistically possible, rather than relying on informal negotiation. Setting core hours when meetings can be scheduled and decisions are made would also help address employers’ most common concerns about coordination and coverage. 

Meeting discipline matters too. This includes fewer ad-hoc meetings, clearer agendas and respect for agreed hours.

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.

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.

Where uncertainty remains, pilots and time-bound trials allow organisations and employees to test arrangements and review outcomes, such as productivity, absenteeism and retention.

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.

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 “family infrastructure” that allows caregiving needs to co-exist with work.

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.