Why is flexibility becoming a dirty word in the office?

When Grab told its Singapore employees in October 2024 that they would need to return to the office five days a week from December, the move was framed as a way to strengthen collaboration and creativity.

Earlier this month, the National University of Singapore announced that it has implemented a five-day work-from-office policy for all full-time staff. A spokeswoman added that it still offers flexible work arrangements.

These decisions, though in different sectors, reflect a wider shift. Across industries, leaders are re-emphasising the office as the centre of work life. The question is no longer whether people can work remotely, but whether organisations still want them to.

Globally, hybrid work remains common rather than an exception. The 2023 Global Survey of Working Arrangements, covering 34 countries, found that full-time employees average 0.9 work-from-home (WFH) days a week - about one in five - with 26 per cent working hybrid and 8 per cent fully remote.

In Singapore, flexibility has become an established expectation. The Ministry of Manpower's 2023 Prevalence of Work-Life Harmony Initiatives report showed that 58.2 per cent of full-time employees required at least one scheduled flexible work arrangement (FWA), and nearly 90 per cent of employers granted it.

Since December 2024, the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR) have also required companies to handle FWA requests through clear, documented processes.

Flexibility is now an expectation, yet some employers are mandating a full-time return to the workplace.

The 2023 State of Hybrid Work report by US-based Owl Labs found that 19 per cent of full-office employees changed jobs within a year, compared with 14 per cent among hybrid or remote workers, and nearly one in three said they would start job hunting if forced into full-time office attendance.

So returning to the office full time requires better reasons than teamwork and creativity. This is especially so when hybrid work or flexible arrangements have led to individuals or teams to perform well. Gallup's 2024 Hybrid Work survey showed that hybrid employees reported higher engagement - 38 per cent - compared with 30 per cent for those fully on-site.

The challenge then is not just to decide between the office or home, but to design workplaces and workflows that address the concerns of employers and the needs of employees at the same time. Presence v performance

One factor that might account for the changing attitudes from employers is the weaker hiring climate.

With the tight job market and hiring slowing in many sectors, organisations feel freer to assert traditional expectations without fearing mass resignations. In an employer's market, the perceived risk of turnover declines, and mandates become easier to enforce.

As such, performance metrics still reward visibility; some coordination tasks, especially in manufacturing, R&D labs or data-secure operations, remain inherently place-bound; and leaders worry that hybrid arrangements may create "proximity bias" favouring those who appear in person.

Employers also cite other factors for wanting people back full time at work, such as fostering teamwork and creativity.

Yet evidence suggests otherwise. A large-scale field experiment by Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom at Trip.com found that employees allowed two days of remote work were just as productive and promotable as those fully on-site, while turnover fell by a third.

This study also reported that hybrid arrangements improve satisfaction and reduce attrition, fostering greater stability and trust within teams - two preconditions for genuine collaboration.

Likewise, more research featured in the MIT Sloan Management Review 2025 shows that well-designed hybrid systems - where teams meet in person for ideation but collaborate asynchronously afterwards - can sustain or even enhance innovation.

Evidence shows that compulsion may boost attendance statistics but not necessarily commitment. There are other repercussions that bosses need to weigh up, too. More On This Topic Podcast: Will working in the office 5 days a week return? It's not what Jamie Dimon said about WFH, it's how he said it

Longer travel times and disrupted caregiving often offset any productivity gains. And the symbolism matters - requiring presence can be read as a declaration that management trusts visibility more than performance.

Many organisations have demonstrated that performance and flexibility can coexist when hybrid work is treated as design and not indulgence.

DBS Bank continues to operate a 60/40 hybrid model in 2025. Employees spend about 60 per cent of their time in the office and 40 per cent remotely, supported by redesigned workspaces and digital platforms.

Recent employee profiles in the news highlight how this structure allows life-stage flexibility - such as for caregiving - without productivity loss.

Citigroup has likewise reaffirmed its hybrid stance. While some Wall Street peers tightened attendance, Citi confirmed in 2025 that it would retain its two-days-remote policy, describing flexibility as "a competitive differentiator for attracting top talent". Catering to a new era

Whether long-term creativity truly depends on compulsion - or on well-designed systems of collaboration - remains an open question.

When in-person presence is genuinely necessary, employers must do more than issue attendance directives - they need to reframe the workplace for the new era of work.

That begins with clarity of purpose: explaining why certain roles or functions require physical co-location, whether for on-site client engagement, data security or specialised equipment. Presence should be a design choice, not a default.

Evaluation systems must also evolve. Instead of equating performance with hours spent at a desk, organisations should measure the quality, timeliness and impact of outcomes. More On This Topic Office or remote? Give workers a greater sense of purpose, wherever they are Returning to office: Bosses, workers in S'pore look for sweet spot in rules

If physical attendance is expected, then work conditions should compensate for the additional demands it imposes - for example, by offering staggered start times, flexible end-of-day arrangements, or practical support for caregiving responsibilities.

Finally, even under stricter attendance rules, fairness and process matter. Under Singapore's TG-FWAR, employers who decline requests for remote work must give written reasons and respond within a reasonable timeframe.

Following this approach not only upholds procedural integrity but also signals respect - a quality as vital to modern workplaces as any new technology.

Data and experience alike show that autonomy, clarity and trust drive engagement far more reliably than physical oversight.

The future of work will hinge less on where people sit than on how both sides navigate give and take.

The most resilient organisations will find equilibrium between these aims - anchoring flexibility in accountability and presence in purpose. Rather than reasserting control, the challenge is to co-create conditions where commitment feels earned on both sides.

Only then will returning to the office become a choice shared, not a rule imposed.

Kang Yang Trevor Yu is an associate professor at the Nanyang Business School and co-director at the Centre for Research and Development in Learning, Nanyang Technological University.

Source: The Straits Times