The general or core provisions under the Act will now extend to all professionals, managers, and executives (PMEs). These include the minimum days of annual leave, paid public holiday and sick leave entitlements, as well as other protections such as timely payment of salary and protection against wrongful dismissal. Previously, only PMEs not earning more than S$4,500 were covered under the general provisions. With the lifting of the S$4,500 cap, almost everyone will be protected by the EA. However, the exclusion clause remains. Domestic maids, Seafarer, and Government servants are still not within the ambit of the EA.

Scope of Coverage

Prior to the changes, the three groups of employees that benefited in being protected by the core provisions were:

• All workmen: manual workers or blue-collar workers.
• All non-workmen: rank-and-file white-collar workers.
• Managers and executives (M&Es) with basic monthly salaries of up to S$4,500.

With the proportion of PMETs expected to make up two-thirds of Singapore’s workforce by 2030, the Government removed the S$4,500 salary threshold for M&Es.

Quoting the Minister for Manpower, Josephine Teo, she said: “In doing so, all employees – whether M&Es, workmen or non-workmen, will be covered by core provisions under the EA. This will benefit an additional 430,000 M&Es.”

This change is very significant. Previously, only Managers and executives earning S$4,500 or less were protected by the EA. By removing the cap, almost all employees and foreign workers would be protected by the EA. Including E-pass holders, regardless of their salary.

A wider scope of protection extended to employees covered under part IV of the EA

In addition to the general provisions, the Act provides a set of additional protections in Part IV, such as on hours of work, rest day and overtime pay. Prior to 1^st April 2019, Part IV covers workmen earning up to S$4,500, and non-workmen (white collar) earning up to S$2,500. They are collectively known as Part IV employees. Part IV of the EA continues to exclude all PMEs.

With the new amendments, the salary threshold had increase for non-workmen from S$2,500 to S$2,600. In addition, the amendments had aligned the salary cap of S$2,250 for calculating overtime pay with the new salary threshold of S$2,600. Before the amendments, the over-time (OT) rate is capped at a basic pay of $2,250 for non-workmen. That means if an employee earns more than $2,250 but not more than $2,500, he qualifies for OT pay. However, the basic pay that is being used to calculate was capped at a maximum of $2,250. If he earns less than $2,250, then that amount will be taken as the basis for calculation. With the new amendments, a non-workman will qualify for OT pay (and receive additional protection under part IV of the EA) if he earns S$2,600 or less, and the actual salary that he earns will be used as a basis of calculation. In other words, the S$2,250 cap of the past has been removed.

Public Holidays

Extend option of time off for working on public holiday to more employees:

• Workmen and non-workmen who are protected under part IV are required to be paid if they work on a public holiday or provide a full day off-in-lieu.
• The amendment had introduced a third option for workmen and non-workmen who are not Part IV employees. Employers will be able to grant them time off for hours worked on a public holiday, rather than a full day off.
• With these changes, all employees will continue to be compensated for working on public holidays. Part IV employees, who have lower bargaining power, will continue to receive either an extra day’s pay or a full day off if they are required to work on a public holiday.

Annual Paid Leave

• Originally, the annual leave was in part IV of the EA. Technically speaking, only those covered under part IV had a statutory right to paid annual leave.
• The annual leave is being moved from part IV of the EA to the general provisions. By moving the annual leave to the general provisions, all employees (including M&E) protected by the EA would be entitled to statutory leave benefits of 7 days (minimum).
• For staff under the general provisions of the EA, including Managers and executives. They will need to refer to their employment contracts on the treatment of unused annual leave entitlements. Its basically an offer and acceptance clause.
• The Act, however, requires employers to allow Part IV employees to carry forward unused annual leave entitlements for another 12-month period. This remains unchanged.

Authorised Deductions

• Prior to 1^st April 2019, the Act limits the type of salary deductions that employers can make, such as absence from work or damaging or losing goods entrusted to the employee based on negligence.
• Some employers provide voluntary group hospital and surgical insurance for their employees if the employees agree to co-pay the premiums. Previously the Act does not allow such deductions even when the employee agrees. From here on, it shall be allowed.
• The Act has been amended to allow a deduction if it fulfils two conditions: Firstly, the employee must willingly consent to the deduction in writing; secondly, the employee must be able to withdraw his consent at any time, without any penalty or consequence.
• In addition, deductions still cannot constitute more than 50% of the employee’s total salary for any one salary period (of a month). Deductions for amenities and services supplied by the employer will continue to require the Commissioner’s approval.

All Adjudication pertaining to Salary Claims and/or Wrongful Dismissal to be Referred to the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT)

• Salary-related disputes are adjudicated by the ECT, while prior to the amendments wrongful dismissal claims were adjudicated by Ministry of Manpower (MOM). In fact, both types of disputes were often related.
• With the recent changes, which provide both employees and employers with a more convenient “one-stop service”, the Government have shifted the adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims from MOM to the ECT. Such claims will be heard by the ECT, following mediation by the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). In line with this approach, it had also expanded the coverage of the Tripartite Mediation Framework (also known as TADM) to include wrongful dismissal claims.
• The type of dismissal cases that MOM hears include not only those when the employee was terminated by the employer, but also cases when the employee resigned involuntarily and under duress. Involuntary resignation can be considered wrongful dismissal if the employee was forced to do so for wrongful reasons.
• Under the Employment Claims Act (ECA), when the ECT adjudicates a case, it must consider the principles and parameters contained in the tripartite guidelines. In cases where a dismissal is found to be wrongful, the ECT will order compensation or reinstatement. There is no change to the scope of remedies. Per the previous practice, the ECT will consider factors beyond just the wages or maternity benefits owed to the employee, in determining the amount of compensation.

Reduce service qualifying period for Managers & Executives being dismissed:

• When the EA was first expanded in 2009 to protect M&Es, the tripartite partners agreed that M&Es would only be eligible to claim for wrongful dismissal if they have served at least 12 months.
• This period has been reduced. Therefore, the qualifying period with effect from 1^st April 2019 will be that the M&E will have to serve at least six months, before they are able to lodge a complaint with the ECT for wrongful dismissal. There is a reduction from 12 to 6 months.
• This is in recognition that performance in an M&E role is not so immediately clear, compared to workmen or non-workmen, where there is no qualifying period.

Medical & Hospitalisation Leave

Recognise medical certificates (MCs) from all doctors for paid sick leave and clarify hospitalisation

• Before the amendments, employers are required under the EA to accord paid sick leave only if the medical certificate (MC) was issued by Government and company-appointed doctors.
• Moving ahead, employers will be required to recognise MCs from all registered doctors for the purpose of granting paid sick leave.
• However, the employer is not required to reimburse the consultation fee if the employee visits a non-appointed company doctor or non-government affiliated doctor from the polyclinic or government medical institution.
• Employers will still be required to reimburse medical consultation fees only for consultation with government doctors; or company-approved doctors, if the medical consultation entitles the employees to paid sick leave.
• What hospitalisation leave entails under the EA has also been clarified. When it comes to hospitalisation leave, employers are required to recognise medical certificates only if they are issued by hospital doctors. Employers who wish to recognise MCs from their own panel-doctors for granting hospitalisation leave are free to continue doing so.
• Hospitalisation leave will continue to cover inpatient stays in hospitals and day surgeries. In addition, the post-discharge period of rest or further medical treatment for the condition that the employee was hospitalised for will also be covered.
• There are also certain circumstances where employers will be required to recognise MCs for purposes of hospitalisation leave. For example, a hospital doctor may assess that a pregnant woman requires hospitalisation for bed rest due to complications in pregnancy, but she may prefer to rest at home. There may also be other specific circumstances such as quarantine orders as required by law which would qualify employees for hospitalisation leave, for example chicken pox. These situations have been provided for in the Act and regulations.

By Martin Gabriel, Senior HR Consultant, HRmatters21

Sources:          Minister, Josephine Teo’s Parliamentary Speech on 20^th Nov 2018

                        Employment (Amendment) Bill, No.47/2018

                        Ministry of Manpower’s Website

]]> https://hrmatters21.net/featured-articles/martin-gabriel-writes-abou-public-holidays-sec-88-ea/ Thu, 02 Nov 2017 06:31:13 +0000 https://hrmatters21.net/?p=4488 Taken from the book: A Guide to The Employment Act and its Related Legislations,  By Martin Gabriel,  © HRmatters21

Your Entitlement to Public Holidays (Sec 88 of The Employment Act) This article only applies to those who are protected by the Employment Act and Managers not earning more than $4,500 (basic pay) per month.

There are 11 days paid public holidays in a year.

An employee is entitled to paid holidays once he is in service. Unlike annual leave, childcare leave, sick leave or maternity leave, where there is a qualifying period, there is no qualifying period for public holidays. For example, an organisation that offers a contract of service to an employee which indicates his start day as 1st January will have to pay him for that day even though it is a public holiday. Therefore if the organisation wants to save a day’s worth of employees pay, all they need to do is change the start day to 2nd January and by doing so, they would not need to pay the employee for that public holiday. After all, to the organisation it makes no difference as the new employee would not show up on the 1st of January as it is a designated public holiday (New Year’s Day). It’s basically a technical issue. With regard to productivity, there isn’t any difference. However, in terms of cost, it’s one day’s gross rate of pay which benefits the employee.

Holidays (Sec 88)

(1) Every employee shall be entitled to a paid holiday at his gross rate of pay on a public holiday that falls during the time that he is employed, subject to the following:

(a) by agreement between the employer and the employee any other day or days may be substituted for any one or more public holidays;

(b) if any public holiday falls on a rest day, the working day next following that rest day shall be a paid holiday; and

(c) if any public holiday falls on a day when the employee is not required to work under his contract of service, the employer may either pay the employee for that holiday at his gross rate of pay or give the employee a day off in substitution for that holiday.

Consumption of public holiday paid to employees is to be paid at gross rate of pay.

If a public holiday falls on a rest day (usually Sunday), that day is still a rest day and the next working day will be a public holiday.

If a public holiday falls on a non-working day (i.e. Saturday which is contractually a non-work day for some employees. This is not rest day which is usually a Sunday). One day off to be given in-lieu or pay one day’s gross rate of pay.

If an employee is required to comes back to work on a public holiday, and there is no replacement, he gets paid (plus) one day’s basic pay in addition to the gross rate of pay for that holiday, – Sec 88(4)

Any other substitution of the day can be mutually agreed.

Employers will be allowed the additional option to grant time-off-in-lieu to managers and executives who are required to work on a public holiday. This is an alternative to paying the employee an extra day’s salary at the basic rate of pay and the gross rate of pay for that holiday, or mutually agreeing to substitute the public holiday for any other day.

Managers and Executives

Managers and executives are entitled to time-off-in-lieu only if the employer had required the employee to work on the public holiday. The employer and employee should mutually agree on the number of hours of work on the public holiday. If an employee chooses to work on a public holiday on his own accord, there would be no time-off-in-lieu for the employee.

Assuming that he was asked by his employer to work on a public holiday, his compensation are as follows:

Sec 88(4A) – Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (4), where an employee who is employed in a managerial or an executive position is required by his employer to work on any public holiday to which he would otherwise be entitled under subsection (1), the employee shall be paid the gross rate of pay for that day and may be given the following, in-lieu of a day off in substitution for that holiday or an extra day’s salary at the basic rate of pay:

(a) part of a day off on a working day comprising such number of hours as may be agreed between the employee and his employer; and

(b) in the case where there is no such agreement –  

(i) part of a day off on a working day comprising 4 hours if the employee worked on that holiday for a period not exceeding 4 hours; or

(ii) a day off on a working day if the employee worked on that holiday for a period of more than 4 hours.

To paraphrase the above provision, if you are in a managerial or executive position earning a basic pay of $4,500 or less, your employer may grant you time off in-lieu for working on a public holiday. The time off should consist of a mutually agreed number of hours. If there is no mutual agreement on the duration of time off, your employer can decide on one of the following:

• Pay an extra day’s salary at the basic rate of pay for one day’s work.
• For working four hours or less on a holiday, grant time off in-lieu for four hours on a working day.
• For working more than four hours on a holiday, grant a full day off on a working day.

Payments to Include Holidays (For Female Employee on Maternity Leave) – (Sec 77)

1. The payment referred to in Sec 76 (length of benefit period for maternity) shall be paid for every day of the benefit period, including holidays, but not any day during the benefit period on which the female employee takes no-pay leave. 

2. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an employer to pay to a female employee an extra day’s salary for a holiday which falls within the benefit period. When a female employee is on maternity leave of up to 12 weeks (or 16 weeks), whatever holidays that fall within the benefit period will be considered as paid. The employer is not required to pay any additional amount of wages.
3. For example, if a staff is on maternity leave from 1 February – 25 April (12 weeks), whatever holidays that are within this period will be counted as paid holidays. Assuming she earns $2,000 for a period of four weeks, and February contains two days of public holiday. For the month of February which is equivalent to four weeks, she still receives $2,000 and the two days of public holiday would have been considered as paid. The employer need not pay her an extra amount for the two days of public holiday nor owe her the two days of public holiday.

Holiday Forfeiture

Sec 88(3) – An employee who absents himself from work on the working day immediately preceding or immediately succeeding a public holiday or any day substituted therefor under subsection (1) without the prior consent of his employer or without reasonable excuse shall not be entitled to any holiday pay for that holiday.

If an employee is absent on a working day immediately before or after the public holiday without his employer’s consent or proper reason, he will not be entitled to public holiday pay (gross rate) – Sec 88(3). The payroll officer should then be mindful to deduct two days’ pay at gross rate, as the employee was absent for a day either preceding the public holiday or after the public holiday. This includes the pay deducted for the public holiday itself.

88(2) – Notwithstanding subsection (1), no employee shall be entitled to holiday pay for any public holiday which falls on a day when the employee is on leave of absence without pay granted by the employer at the request of the employee.

Employees that apply for no pay leave within a range of dates that is before and after the public holiday would not be entitled to paid holiday as described by Sec 88(2). For example, if an employee applies for unpaid leave from Monday to Friday and Wednesday happens to be a public holiday, he would not be entitled to paid holiday for Wednesday. In other words, management would deduct five days of gross rate of pay, and not four days. 

By Martin Gabriel, Senior HR Consultant, HRmatters21

To purchase his book (price at S$28) – order online by clicking: here .

Taken from the book:

Once again, I received the usual call for help. I asked the HR Manager of the company, “What seems to be the problem?” The HR Manager replied, “Too many MC (Medical Certificate) Kings and Queens.” He was referring to employees who were frequently on medical leave but who may not be genuinely sick. The employees’ medical leave seemed to follow a certain pattern. They were usually on Mondays and taken by employees who had exhausted all of their annual leave entitlement. Of particular note was that the annual leave entitlement of new employees was just seven days—the bare minimum enforced by the Employment Act. I told the HR Manager that one of the possible reasons contributing to the high incidence of MCs could be that the annual leave entitlement was insufficient and uncompetitive compared to what other companies were offering. Most companies gave between 10 days for the first year of service and up to 18 days maximum per annum. My client was in the food and beverage (F&B) industry, which is a labour intensive industry. The job was also physically demanding. When employees are given insufficient leave, they tend to look for alternatives to get away from work and a popular option is to doctor-shop to obtain an MC even though they may not be genuinely ill. Another possible reason contributing to the high incidence of MCs could also be the liberal policy of allowing employees to visit their family doctors. While I am not against the idea of allowing employees the convenience of seeing their own family doctors, as it is rather unreasonable to ask an employee to travel somewhere further if he is sick (we usually have to give the benefit of the doubt), I believe this should be done with some form of control. The Employment Act allows employers to appoint their own doctors, albeit MCs from all government affiliated hospitals and clinics (including polyclinics) must be recognised. Initially, I suggested two recommendations that could mitigate the company’s high incidence of MCs.

• Increase annual leave entitlement from 7 days to 10 days (from the first year)
• Recognise MCs issued by employees’ family/personal doctors only 4 times a year.

After the fourth time, employees have to visit the company-appointed doctor or government affiliated hospitals or polyclinics for their MCs to be recognised by the company. I believed the above could mitigate the high incidence of medical leave. However, not long after making those recommendations, I had a nagging feeling that their effects would not be as impactful as I had hoped for. I had trouble sleeping that night and was thinking about how many companies had implemented similar policies but had experienced only lukewarm results. It was then that I was struck by a brilliant idea! I texted my client immediately and arranged a meeting the next morning. At the meeting, I drew a chart and advised him that we should incentivise the sort of behaviour that we desired.

Many companies have a ‘No-MC Award’ that was given to employees who did not consume their medical leave. However, calling it a ‘No-MC Award’ was wrong, as consuming medical leave was not a benefit—it was one’s right. We must never deny an employee’s right to go on medical leave, especially when a qualified doctor recognised by the company had granted it. Most companies also had a policy to reward an employee if he or she did not consume any medical leave in a year. Usually, the reward would be about $100. I advised the HR manager that this was not a good approach as the stakes were high. Imagine if one employee contracted SARS on the 31st of December. If he were to take medical leave, he would lose the $100 incentive that would certainly be his if he maintained his MC-free record for just one more day; there was a high chance that this employee would turn up for work despite being down with a contagious disease. In this scenario, the health of all the employees would be put at risk and that would ultimately affect productivity as well. Therefore, while we wanted to encourage 100% work attendance, we also wanted to ensure that those who are genuinely sick stay home to rest. The question was: how do you formulate a policy that does just that? The answer, in my opinion, was a tiered model reward system. In addition to the earlier two recommendations, I also recommended to the company the following:

• Employees who do not consume any medical leave or up to one day’s medical leave will receive a S$500 cash award.
• Employees who consume between two to three days of medical leave will receive a S$300 cash award.
• Employees who consume between four to five days of medical leave will receive a S$100 cash award.

There will be no award for employees who consume six days or more of medical leave.

We also decided to call this policy ‘The Healthy Award Scheme’ because as I had said earlier, it was wrong to call it a ‘No-MC Award’ as consuming medical leave was an employee’s right. The following table is a summary of our award scheme.

When I submitted the proposal, the CEO asked me, “Where is all this money coming from?” It was a question that I had anticipated. The bottom-line is always the most important thing to a CEO. I went through the math with him, which went along something like this:

Let us take for example, an employee who earns about S$1,800 per month, which was the median salary of their waiters. Since most of the company’s staff took all 14 days of the medical leave to which they were entitled, the cost to the company would be as follows:

S$1,800 (Gross Salary) x 12 x 14 / 312 (6 days’ workweek) = S$969.23

Note that when an employee is on medical leave, he is still paid his salary. Based on a median monthly salary of S$1,800, an employee on medical leave for a day would cost the company S$69.23. An employee on medical leave for 14 days a year would cost the company about S$969.23. Mind you, there is also a loss of output in terms of man-hours, so it’s a double whammy of cost and productivity loss. Now, please don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against employees who are sick and need rest. I’m merely quantifying the financial ramifications to the company. So how can we truly calculate the loss? Since the company is paying the employee $69.23 for a day’s work, that amount would also be the opportunity cost; when an employee goes on medical leave, the company does not lose just one day’s pay, it also loses one day of output.

Therefore, total loss should be calculated as S$69.23 x 2 = S$138.46. Some companies may even calculate the cost of having another staff to cover the duties of the employee who is on sick leave. I shall not do this, as I prefer to keep the calculation direct and simple. However, what about medical-fee reimbursement? The average reimbursement was about S$40. Now if we add everything up, what would the total cost be? Let me demonstrate by using a table to tabulate the total cost.

Number of Medical Leave days

If an employee consumed all 14 days of his medical leave, it would cost the organisation a whopping S$2,498.44 per year. Now, imagine if all their employees did the same. What would the cost be? The amount would indeed be frightening. I explained the above to the CEO and advised him that the cost of the incentive scheme that I had suggested was paltry compared to the cost his company had to bear if his employees consumed 14 days of medical leave a year. When he had digested all the information, he was convinced to try the incentive scheme. We implemented the scheme the following year and by the end of that year, we saw positive results. Employee attendance had improved significantly and the total cost of medical leave was reduced. The scheme was a win-win for both the company and the employees. In conclusion, let me explain why the scheme was particularly effective in the case discussed. Firstly, the financial incentives had a greater impact on employees who earned no more than S$2,500, as the amount formed a significant percentage of their pay. There might be very little impact on high-earners as the amount might not be significant enough to drive and motivate them to change their behaviours. Secondly, the scheme also had a greater impact because the company was in the service industry, which relied significantly on labour output. Man-hours are critical to restaurants and hotels, yet they are the ones who seem to be grappling with high incidences of medical leave. I believe it is due to the work of a service-industry worker being more physically demanding compared to the work a white-collar employee performs. I am sure white-collar work can be stressful as well but I do believe that labour-intensive work often leads to fatigue and as a result, employees who have insufficient annual leave may tend to explore other options of getting their much needed rest-days, one of them being the full utilisation of their medical leave entitlement. Therefore, it makes sense for companies in the labour intensive industry to use incentives to shape the behaviours of their employees in such a way that would enhance productivity and reduce cost. For my client, the suggestions I made above, when implemented, did show positive results. However you would need more than a year to notice the savings and gains in productivity. It took more than a year for my clients to see the positive results from the implementation of my recommendations, but the savings in cost and the gains in productivity were worth the wait.

By Martin Gabriel, Senior HR Consultant, HRmatters21

To purchase his book (price at S$16) – email to: gabrielm@singnet.com.sg

The following case study is one that I have used, over and over again, to illustrate fair compensation and salary increment when conducting my workshops.

The HR Director of a prestigious five star hotel invited me to a meeting and I was told to prepare material relevant to salary increment and promotion. I met the HR Director, who told me, “Martin I have a problem. I want to ensure that my employees receive salary increments, but I have a particular problem with a certain vocation”. I asked him which vocation, and he told me it was the doorman. What he said made sense to me: every year the doorman received a salary increment of between three to five per cent, but his job size remained the same. For example, if the salary of the doorman was S$1,200, an increment of four percent would mean that his base salary would become S$1,248. An increment of four per cent the following year would equate to an amount of $50 and his base salary would rise to S$1,298. In other words, the task of opening and closing the door for guests, will become more and more expensive with each passing year. The job-scope, however, remained essentially the same: opening and closing the doors and smiling at guests.

The vital question was: how do you reward an employee who does a job that cannot grow? Apparently, the hotel’s management was also thinking about retrenching the doorman and replacing his job with technology; the doors would be fitted with sensors that automatically opened and closed them, much like the kind that are found in shopping centres. I told the HR Director that his hotel was a five-star hotel and that the doorman represented service at the highest level. Having a doorman was actually vital to the hotel’s brand identity. The HR Director and I decided to meet again the following week and I promised to return with research insights into the job-scope of a doorman and other similar vocations that were traditionally regarded as jobs with low or no growth potential.

In conducting my research, I paid a visit to the famous Raffles hotel, which had one of the most distinctive and recognisable doormen around. Somehow, their doorman’s job had evolved into something different. Beyond opening and closing doors and greeting guests, the doorman had become an icon with a distinctive appearance. No tourist could resist the temptation of taking a photograph with a tall and bearded Sikh in a colourful uniform. A bearded Sikh may be a common sight to locals living in multi-racial Singapore, but to a Japanese or European tourist, he was an interesting character and a perfect opportunity to take a photograph to record their unforgettable stay at the hotel. There was added value to the doorman’s job at Raffles hotel, as it involved an aspect of marketing and branding.

I also examined other jobs that were task-oriented and that were rather difficult to add value to if we did not look beyond the task itself. For example, when I made a stop at the petrol station, I noticed that the task of filling up petrol was fairly simple and unskilled; almost anyone could do it, even the customers themselves. Increasing the salary of the petrol pump attendant would also make the act of performing the task more expensive without any gains in productivity. This was the same with waiters and waitresses. Limited opportunities for growth was also an important reason why companies found it difficult to recruit people into these vocations; after all, if an employee’s job-scope could not grow, there would be no reason to raise their salary, and if salaries remained stagnant, what kind of prospects can there be for the employee? I came to the conclusion that the only way to grow these jobs was by thinking out of the box and finding ways to raise the level of service standards and to add new dimensions to the job-scope. The following were my recommendations to the hotel:

• Ensure that the doorman is distinctive and visible to guests. Dress him up to reflect Singapore’s culture.
• Include a small stage with a backdrop of a distinctive background of Singapore, along with cultural props, e.g., a trishaw, next to the hotel’s entrance. This gives tourists an opportunity to have a photograph taken with the doorman and trishaw.
• Charge a small fee for a printed copy of the photograph, along with a decorative frame.
• The doorman is now, not just a doorman, but also an actor who promotes the hotel’s brand and Singapore’s culture.
• He now contributes to his own salary (or part of) and can no longer be seen as a ‘liability’.
• There is now justification for further increments, as there is more potential for growth in his job-scope and responsibilities.
• Make a concerted effort to promote a tipping culture. This would enable employees in the service sector to earn more based on individual performance. While teamwork is important, one of its drawbacks is that non-performing employees are able to ‘hide’ within the group, allowing others to do the heavy lifting while they harvest the rewards. A tip from the customer would be an immediate reward that would motivate service staff to improve their service. The hotel should actively promote tipping, for example, through signages or having messages printed on bills and receipts to encourage guests to tip the service staff if they are happy with the service rendered.
• The doorman now has a greater opportunity to earn tips, as the photography service results in an increase in contact-time with guests. This will allow the doorman more time to demonstrate a high level of service.

The HR Director was rather hesitant about my recommendations, which required him to work with marketing and sales personnel. He felt uneasy entering an unfamiliar domain. I advised him that times had changed and that it was important that HR be more than just administrative support; it had to be a business partner contributing to sales as well. Although implementing these recommendations would not be easy and would take at least a year for results to be noticed (there would probably be resistance from employees and involve a fair bit of politics), I managed to persuade the HR Director to present the proposal to the General Manager (GM).

At the meeting with the GM, I presented my ideas and informed him that I had conducted extensive research, including interviewing employees from the service sectors; although this project initially focused on the job-scope of a doorman, the ideas I had, were in principle, also applicable and relevant to most service staff. I had felt that it was crucial to address the labour crunch that was affecting all service workers—not just doormen. I shared with him the following: Employees in the service industry, especially those in fast food, usually retirees, housewives, or those who are in a transitional stage of their lives, such as students who have completed their ‘A’ levels and are waiting to enter university or National Service. These students see such jobs as a way to pass time and earn some pocket money while they are waiting to move on to the next phase of their lives. Not many, if any at all, will choose to build their careers in the service industry. Most prefer white collar jobs upon graduation from polytechnic or university. The managers at such establishments are by and large foreign workers in their 30’s to 40’s—most notably Filipinos, who are usually proficient in English.

Another vulnerable group, made up almost entirely of the elderly, is the cleaners. Cleaning companies find it difficult to recruit locals and to overcome the shortage of manpower, most of these companies place their workers on 12-hour shifts. The result is higher employee turnover, as many elderly workers cannot cope with the long hours. How do we tackle this vicious cycle? In my view, cross-functional training is the answer.

It is indeed a challenge to expand and grow a cleaner’s job, but what if we could train them to take on a secondary role? One of the duties of a cleaner is to clean the lavatory. What if cleaners were trained to do basic plumbing work? They would be able to perform a dual function and consequently be valued more. They do not have to be a professional plumber; they just need to know enough to clear chokes and understand how water is distributed to various outlets. They can also be trained to administer chemicals that prevent chokes within pipe systems. Cross functional training can not only lead to better manpower optimisation but also lend a new lease of life to an individual’s career. A cross-trained cleaner, with additional training, has an option of becoming a plumber, if his cleaning job is ever replaced with technology or lower wage foreign workers. This is why I encourage companies to train their employees in secondary skills that are linked to their primary vocation. In essence, it is not ideal to raise output through increasing hours of work. Instead, we should add value to an employee’s job by redesigning it such that the employee learns more useful skills that are relevant and that contribute to the job.

I eventually managed to convince the GM to give my proposal a shot. Most of my recommendations were implemented—carefully though—as we did not want employees fighting over customers’ tips. We came up with a system that allowed every service employee an equal opportunity to earn that valuable tip, on top of his/her base salary. As for the hotel doorman, his salary was increased by almost twenty percent and he now had an enlarged job-scope with greater responsibilities and more potential for growth.

By Martin Gabriel, Senior HR Consultant, HRmatters21

To purchase his book (price at S$16) – email to: gabrielm@singnet.com.sg

This case involved a lorry driver who chalked up five accidents over the last ten months. The driver worked for the company for just slightly less than a year. As a driver, his performance was certainly not on par with his fellow colleagues’. The company wanted him to learn a lesson and deducted his salary in order to make good on repairs to the lorry. Insurance reports showed that the driver was at fault and his company was made to pay over S$15,000 in third party claims. The company deducted S$1,000 over two months (S$500 each month) from the driver. The driver’s salary was about S$3,500 per month including OT claims. We shall call the driver Jack Lee to maintain anonymity. The company shall be called ABC Pte Ltd. In a fit of anger, Jack went to see his supervisor to resolve the matter. He was clearly fuming mad when he and the supervisor spoke. The supervisor maintained that the company had the right to deduct his salary as the accidents happened as a result of his negligence and that the insurance report clearly favoured the other parties who had made claims against ABC Pte Ltd. Jack asked his supervisor to return the salary that was deducted from his pay. However, the supervisor refused and tried his best to justify the deductions. The conversation took place at the parking bay, where all the lorries were parked, and not at the site office. As the supervisor spoke, Jack became frustrated and he threw the lorry ignition key on the dirt road before storming off. The next day, Jack did not turn up for work. ABC Pte Ltd had to scramble to find a replacement driver. His last salary was withheld as he did not serve notice and did not turn up for work. Jack later filed a complaint at MOM regarding the unauthorised deductions and his last salary which was being withheld by the company. Up till this stage, I was not involved in the case. A mediation was called for by MOM. However, both parties stood their ground. The company refused to pay anything even though MOM urged the company to take the middle ground and part ways by offering some kind of compensation. Unsuccessful in getting ABC Pte Ltd to reach a compromise, the case was referred to labour court. It was only at this stage that I was called up by the company to help draft a defense for them. I was then appointed as their HR advisor.

The following are the claims from Jack:

1. Last salary withheld by the company which was about half a month’s salary.
2. S$1,000 which was deducted from his salary for causing damages to the lorry. He wants the S$1,000 back.
3. Jack was also claiming deferred mid-year bonus payment. Imagine the audacity of this chap, even after causing five accidents, he felt he was entitled to a bonus, a reward which was basically performance based. I cannot imagine any company that would accept a rate of five accidents within a timeframe of ten months as performance that is good enough to qualify for bonus payment. Anyway, those were his claims.

According to MOM, the hearing of this case was based on unauthorised deduction of salary based on the following provision of the EA;

Sec 26.  No deduction shall be made by an employer from the salary of an employee, unless the deduction is authorised by or under any provision of this Act or is required to be made — (a) by order of a court or other authority competent to make such order”

The following were our rebuttal to the claims made by Jack:

• Last salary withheld by the company which was about half a month’s salary. Jack vacated office without serving notice on 23 Oct. Registered letter was sent on 29 Oct stating that since he vacated office, he owed ABC Pte Ltd notice-in-lieu.
• We added that since Jack was unhappy about the deductions, he should have used the grievance procedure and wrote in or spoke to Management about the matter. Instead, Jack took matters into his own hands and vacated office without serving notice nor paying in-lieu of notice. This was highly irresponsible and a gross breach of contract.
• The return of the S$1,000 which was deducted from his salary for causing damages to the lorry through his negligence.
• We argued that the deduction for the S$1,000 was due to negligence and that the company had the right to deduct his pay based on the following EA section;

“27(1)(b) deductions for damage to or loss of goods expressly entrusted to an employee for custody or for loss of money for which an employee is required to account, where the damage or loss is directly attributable to his neglect or default”

MOM asked us to show cause. Our reply was that Jack was given sufficient time and opportunity to put forward his case. The insurance report showed that Jack was at fault and it resulted in the company having to pay a substantial amount of money.

• Bonus claim

As far as we were concerned, bonus was based on performance and Jack’s five accidents clearly showed poor performance as a driver. Also, it is the prerogative of the company to pay bonuses based on staff performance evaluation. Jack had no right to demand for bonus that was not contractual but based on his performance which was substantiated by an appraisal system. An employee also had to be in employment to receive bonus payout as bonus payment is paid as part of a retention and reward scheme. Bonus payment is non-statutory. It is based on a system of performance rewards. Jack had no right to dictate its terms and conditions by asking for bonus.

Our Summary Pointers

• By vacating office without notice, Jack had caused ABC Pte Ltd substantial damage in productivity.
• Jack took matters into his own hands and did not use the grievance procedure based on policy.
• Jack’s history of five accidents reflected his poor performance. Ironically, he wanted to claim bonus, when such payments are clearly a reward system for high performers and are based on merit. As such, his claims are frivolous. The insurance report was used to substantiate negligence as the insurance company was a neutral party.
• Jack clearly had no regard for safety. Lives could have been lost due to his negligence. His five accidents in over ten months reflected tardiness in his duty as a driver. In addition, if lives had been lost in those accidents, the company could have been held accountable.
• The court would be mocking the company and all it stood for if an underperforming employee who breached his contract by vacating office is rewarded with monies.
• The company had endeavoured to strike a balance between business objectives and human relations.
• The company cannot be seen to be ‘rewarding’ Jack with bonus payment for such poor performance as that would set a very dangerous precedence. Other drivers may receive the wrong message.
• The use of authority (MOM & labour court) to even the score with ABC Pte Ltd was an abuse by Jack.

Court’s Verdict

The hearing was completed within two days, and we were to meet in the afternoon after lunch to hear the verdict.

The judge awarded us the notice-in-lieu, as he agreed with us that Jack was obliged to serve notice or notice-in-lieu as it was a contractual obligation. Therefore, this amount was off-set against his last salary that was being withheld, which was more or less about the same as his notice period. It amounted to about half a month’s salary for a non-confirmed employee.

The judge did not agree with our deduction of S$1,000 for the five accidents. He said that a lorry could not be considered as ‘goods’. The EA states that we could deduct an employee’s salary “for damage to or loss of goods expressly entrusted to an employee”. If a lorry wasn’t ‘goods’, then what is a lorry? I’m quite certain that it has a monetary value and the EA also did state that “or for loss of money for which an employee is required to account, where the damage or loss is directly attributable to his neglect or default”. I was concerned at such an interpretation. If all employees entrusted with vehicles knew that being negligent and causing accidents would not affect their pockets, I wonder what sort of impact it would have on their work performance.

When the judge made his decision pertaining to the bonus claim, I almost fell off the chair. Bonus payment of about S$800 were to be paid to Jack, the lorry driver! Now where was this coming from? I could hardly believe what I was hearing and interrupted him several times before he scolded me and said that the company could appeal his decision. Which company in their right mind would appeal to the high court for a mere S$800? The MD of the company was also fuming mad and said that we should appeal. At that point of time we were all emotional, so I allowed about two days to pass before persuading the MD that we should let this case pass, as the effort and resources needed to make an appeal to the high court wasn’t worth it. I’m glad the MD agreed with me.

By Martin Gabriel, Senior HR Consultant, HRmatters21

To purchase his book (price at S$25) – email to: gabrielm@singnet.com.sg

Whatever the scale of restructuring change, even the most well intentioned designs can fail to achieve the desired outcomes if they are not implemented effectively. And often than not, companies tend to overlook one of the most basic yet most important ways of ensuring an effective transition – a communication plan that meets employees’ emotional needs. This article aims to provide a guide to the 5Ws (What, Why, Who, When, Where) and 1H (How) to a sound communication plan to manage organizational structure changes and meet employees’ emotional needs.

What, Why and How

A clear and simple message that describes what the organizational structure change could be the foundational cornerstone for the communication plan. Changes seen as an extension of the organizational culture are more likely to be embraced. Those that are not congruent are likely to create more resistance. More complex changes are often resisted. On top of the rationale behind the change, it is also important to explain what are the expected benefits (and risks) of the change. All these considerations need to be addressed in a clear and simple communication.

When overlooked, poor communication during organizational restructuring often results in staff confusion, apathy, disengagement and demoralization. In addition, when companies fail to collect and integrate employee feedback in the change, it latently suggest that the company does not value employees’ feedback on the change, which does not resonate well with staffs.

Involving employees in implementing and communicating the change can go a long way to ensuring that the desired outcomes are achieved.   Instead of making employees the recipient of change communications, involve enthusiastic employees in implementing and communicating the change. Every individual could have different view point and, therefore, unique perspective about the change.  We should give employees a safe environment to suggest potential changes and alternative views to the change.

Typically, it is better to use multiple channels because it increases the probability that employees will hear about the change and better understand the change effort with reinforcement from the many channels. Emotion-rich and contact-rich platforms, such as face-to-face meetings, should be used as it enables rapid feedback and quick adaptation to employee concerns. It can be very difficult to ascertain whether employees are still in the Denial stage (Kubler-Ross’s theory on stages of Grief: Denial -> Anger -> Bargaining -> Depression -> Acceptance) if the change communication is announced only via a single corporate memorandum.

Who, When and Where

Who communicates may be as important as what they say. Therefore, change leaders need to carefully identify who will announce and sponsor the changes. We should select leaders of the right position and influence to make the announcement. While not all leaders are skilled presenters or change managers, but by just demonstrating solidarity among the leaders, it is often more impactful than putting up a good oratorical performance. A team of leaders reporting the change together, including more senior leaders higher up in the supervisory relationship of the organizational structure change, signals to the entire organization that the change was already well debated, agreed and committed by the leadership team.

A key consideration on timing is to make announcements early to employees and building in employee’s reaction time to actively harvest dissent, if any. It is important to have a forum (for example, in a closed door meeting or 1 to 1 check-in) to harvest any dissent in a safe manner for both the messengers and recipients. Making the announcement on the first day of the work week versus on the last day of the work week can also strategically and tactically produce different results. For example, if information is only shared late into the work week, say on a Friday afternoon, employees may not have their concerns adequately addressed (by the change managers and facilitators) over the week end, that is their off and rest days, and they may discussed within themselves to form the wrong negative assumptions and impressions about the change. By the following Monday, the seed of distrust and has already been planted.

Case studies

Organization A promotes staff X

Approach: The leaders delivered initial communications to affected employees in person so that it fosters an emotional connection. The leaders ensure that employees have a safe platform (closed door meeting) to start a dialogue, ask questions, and get satisfactory answers. The platform allows leaders to answer the affected employees’ questions promptly and efficiently. Organization A constantly gauge employee reactions and collect feedback to determine how comfortable the employees are with the change and how the change management process should proceed.

Result: The employees and other stakeholders are clear about the rationale for the change and what are the actions and plans taken by the leaders to manage the change and support its people during the transition. There is no visible drop in employee satisfaction and engagement and the organization’s operation and business is not affected negatively in any way.

Organization B promotes staff Y

Approach: The leader sent a single corporate memorandum via email to inform customers and partners on the news of the promotion of staff Y and carbon copy the staffs who would report to staff Y. There is no avenue and time for the affected employees to react to the sudden announcement. And there is no effort by organization B to monitor employee reactions and collect timely feedback on the change.

Result: One high performing staff quitted the organization in less than 3 months and one of the reasons cited in the exit interview is that the employee felt disrespected in the manner that the announcement was made known to the rest of the organization even before he was made aware, when he is most impacted by the change as he would report to staff Y. Another solid worker staff showed visible signs of disengagement and bewilderment in the initial stages after the announcement was made.

Productivity and morale within the team suffered as a result due to wide spread employee disengagement and the transition gap caused by the high performing staff leaving the team and the subsequent long search for a suitable replacement. And in the process for the replacement staff to join the organization and to get up to speed, the remaining team members have to share and manage team’s work load with “one less headcount”. Thereafter, a big emotional and psychological responsibility is placed upon staff Y to bring his team together to the previous Performing level (Bruce Tuckman’s team development model of Forming -> Storming -> Norming -> Performing) before the change.

While the above case studies may be isolated cases, going forward it would not hurt to consider the 5Ws and 1H holistically when strategizing and implementing the organizational structure change communication. Currently, is your organization more A-type or B-type when communicating organizational structure changes?

By Zhiyang Gung

About the author 

Zhiyang Gung is an experienced human resources/ workforce development manager who drives learning & development, knowledge management, organizational development and talent management initiatives and programs to enable the organization to win. He has more than 8 years of change management experience that spans across multiple countries and industries. He has seen his fair share of change leaders who struggle during the change efforts due to poor communication strategy and plan. He likes to share with people on his knowledge and experiences so they can stop learning the hard way as he did.

The phone rang and the HR Executive on the other side of the line asked me, “Martin, could you help us draft a memo?” “Sure,” I replied. “What is it about?” I asked. She said that her company wanted all their male staff to be clean shaven. No moustache. “What? No moustache? But why?” I asked. She said, “Management wants them to be clean shaven.”  I wasn’t sure how to react. I told her that the company wasn’t in the F&B or service industry and even then, having a moustache wasn’t against company policy. I knew of companies that didn’t quite like their employees sporting the five o’clock shadow, or heavy stubble. However, those companies were usually in the service industry. In those cases, management’s stance was that  you either had a moustache or beard, or you are clean shaven. No half beard or pokey stubble. It made men look half sleepy and poorly groomed, and that usually didn’t sit well with the service industry. But this company I was assisting was in construction. “Okay, why don’t we do it this way, let’s take a general approach,” I said, “let’s approach this from a general tone of overall cleanliness and proper grooming”. I told her that it was best to be persuasive rather than to make the memo a directive, as the keeping of moustache had no bearing on work performance. And so I wrote something that went along this line:

“Staff are encouraged to keep their dormitories (most of their employees were foreigners) clean and tidy. They should also maintain short hair, clean hands, and if possible be clean shaven”. There were also other details in the memo but the above proved to be our saving grace later. I drafted the memo and emailed it to her. About two weeks later, I got a call from her. She said that the MD wanted to see me right away. I could sense that something was wrong and immediately made my way to the office. At the office, the MD briefed me about what just happened. Apparently, the so called ‘campaign’ to get the men to shave their moustache had taken a nasty twist. About 30 workers ran away, some of them to their respective embassies, some to a lawyer’s office and the others alerted the press. The press called MOM and apparently they asked, “We got information that a company threatened to terminate male staff who didn’t shave their moustaches. What is the Ministry’s stance on such practices?” When the MOM was asked to make a statement pertaining to the termination of male staff who kept moustaches, they immediately got in touch with my client and asked their representative to make an appearance at MOM (this information only came to light after our interview with MOM). And that was where I was supposed to come in, my role as a HR Consultant now required me to explain what was going on, and to ensure that I put a right to what went ‘wrong’. Wow, this was indeed a tough one. So it was decided by the MD that I would have two other managers with me. We were not sure what clarifications they (MOM) were seeking at that point in time when they called us and they did not elaborate further but simply said that they wanted to see the company’s HR Manager or representatives.

As we sat in an interview room, we were greeted by three officers. I immediately recognised one of them as an ex-colleague of mine. I believed she recognised me too, however, we didn’t acknowledge each other as ex-colleagues. She took her seat in the middle and it became apparent that she was the most senior and highest ranking among the three. I sat in the middle too, directly across the table from her. She immediately got down to serious business and asked, “Did the company threaten the male workers to shave their moustaches or be terminated?” I answered, “No.” I said that officially the company did not issue any ultimatum to the workers to shave their moustaches. She then showed me a poster that displayed a ‘before and after’ message. A picture on the left showed a man with a moustache looking rather glum, and a picture on the right side of the poster showed someone clean shaven giving a broad smile. This is the same type of picture you would see on advertisements targeting ladies put up by beauty salons selling their slimming services. This picture caught me by surprise, and for a moment I was stunned. I quickly recovered and stated that, officially, the company would not terminate any worker just because he sported a moustache. The company however could not control what went on at the work site itself, where supervisors may have said and done things in an informal manner. It could also have been a case of miscommunication as most of the workers who were affected were foreigners. However, workers were free to approach higher management to clarify matters. There was no official document that said that anyone who sported a moustache should be fired. I also informed MOM that I drafted a memo that recommended workers be clean shaven but it was just part of a broader cleanliness and grooming campaign. She asked me where the memo was and I replied that it was submitted to the HR Executive about two weeks ago. We were then asked for her (the HR Executive) number and the MOM officer made the call to request a copy of that memo. We were not allowed to leave our seats while this was going on. I believed they were afraid that we would go out and invent a memo that matched the story I had just described, or brief the HR Executive on what she should say. Luckily for us, the memo I drafted was faxed over within minutes. It was proof that we were not targeting staff with moustaches specifically but that our approach was one of general cleanliness and grooming. The MOM officer asked me, “Why do you guys need to get into the personal grooming of a construction worker?” Aha! Such questions gave me the opportunity to delve into best HR practices, which was my cup of tea. I said, “Well, we usually look into their personal habits and grooming if it affects their work performance. For example, if someone has long hair, and it covers their eyes when they go up to the 25^th storey, and if they take a wrong step because their hair gets in the way of complete visibility, are we to be blamed?” Doesn’t a waiter or waitress need to keep short and clean finger nails? After all, when they serve food their hands are clearly visible. Their hands have to be clean or customers would lose their appetite. I added that, given the choice, we would have preferred not to get into the workers’ grooming and cleanliness but because they did have bearing on workers’ performance, we had no choice but to do so. Using the memo, I was able to explain and prove that there was no such threat of termination for sporting a moustache. MOM ended the interview and we didn’t hear from them again pertaining to the ‘inconvenient moustache’. There was also no story from the press either. Case closed.

By Martin Gabriel, Senior HR Consultant, HRmatters21

To purchase his book (price at S$25) – email to: gabrielm@singnet.com.sg

Singapore and Asia’s great statesman,

While the world may ponder over what will be Mr. Lee’s lasting legacy, and scrutinise if certain decisions are made correctly, perhaps what each one of us could learn from how Mr. Lee led his team and his nation through good times and bad.

Hence, the spirit of this article isn’t so much as to praise nor criticise Mr. Lee as a politicians, nor would it be in scrutinising his policies. Rather, it is to distill some of those leadership qualities that whether you are a CEO of a large company, or a department head, or even an informal leader of work groups with no formal authority, you can learn or emulate some of these qualities.

If there is ever mentioning of Mr. Lee’s previous policies, it will be for the sake of illustration purposes, so that mere mortals like myself can find practical ways to apply some of Mr. Lee’s leadership qualities to our everyday lives.

Lee Kuan Yew’s 5 Key Leadership Qualities

Since Mr. Lee is a highly complex leader, different observers and leadership authors will have different views as to which are the leadership qualities that gave Mr. Lee the competitive advantage, and helped him lead his team and nation through many ups and downs.

Based on my observations and reading of the many anecdotes of the people that have worked with and challenged him, here are my pick:

1. Being totally resolved and focused to achieve hard goals
2. Having the acumen and clarity of insight to make the right decisions
3. Working with a team of highly competent members
4. Setting extremely high standards for himself and others
5. Direct and straight-to-the-point communication

If there’s a prioritised ranking of what made Lee Kuan Yew succeed as a leader, I would choose the one on him being totally resolved and focused to achieve some very hard and challenging goals, come what may. No matter what Mr. Lee’s critics might say, bringing a small country from 3rd world to 1st within one generation is a very challenging goal in all aspects. Being able to be respected and sought after as a nation to partner with by larger and more powerful nations such as USA and China is an even greater achievement.

Not only that, Mr. Lee is also able to get buy-in from his team, such that they believe that they can succeed together with him, despite seeming insurmountable odds. In the words of his son, current Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, “with Mr Lee you always knew you were on a winning team. That whatever happened you were with someone who would always find a way and we would be alright”.

If one does not have the right acumen and clear insight to make good decisions, then merely having a great attitude and work ethic might just make one work hard in the wrong direction. Whether it’s dealing with British Colonialists to obtain independence, or making the decision to encourage Foreign Direct Investment, or even balancing international relations, Mr. Lee had the acumen to see through the clutter and gain an insight with such clarity that even world leaders actively seek him for advice.

Even Margaret Thatcher once remarked that “he was never wrong.” This is not to say that Mr. Lee had never made mistakes, but in the context of reading between the lines of international relations, it seemed like the advice Mr. Lee gave to Mrs. Thatcher “was never wrong”.

Having achieved clear insights, Lee Kuan Yew did not merely work alone. It is a myth and also misleading to say that Mr. Lee built and developed Modern Singapore single-handedly. On a broader scale, Mr. Lee was able to galvanise the population to work real hard to achieve his goals and vision. On a narrower scale, Mr. Lee would have never succeeded if he didn’t have a core team to support him.

These core team members are not mere supporters to “carry the bags” of Lee Kuan Yew. Rather, they were cabinet ministers with different specialisations and team roles, and were great leaders in their own right. They would challenge Mr. Lee when they thought there was a better solution, and would complement him when he lagged the required skill sets. For instance, the successful economic development of Singapore was based on the blueprint set by Dutch economist Dr. Albert Winsemius, and implemented through then-Finance Minister Dr. Goh Keng Swee who set up the Economic Development Board.

Lee Kuan Yew set extremely high standards, both for himself as well as for his team and government. Besides ensuring that there is clean government with no (or very little) corruption in his administration, Mr. Lee demanded results from everyone. For instance, when Changi Airport opened its Terminal 2 in 1990, Mr. Lee lamented that there were no flowered plants on the road leading to the terminal. Now, the planting of flowers en route to the airport did not belong to the jurisdiction of the Airport, but Mr. Lee didn’t care. He wanted it done, and held the airport management accountable to work with the relevant departments to get the plants planted.

Ultimately, Lee Kuan Yew was very direct and straight-to-the-point in his communication. He is someone who spoke his mind, and his team members or subordinates did not have to second-guess what he was thinking. He “hated empty-talking because he thought time was precious and there were too many things to do”

How Too Much of a Good Thing can be Bad

Now if Lee Kuan Yew mastered the above leadership qualities, why then would there be drawbacks or when someone were to emulate him? Well, for 3 reasons:

1. Over self-confidence;
2. Over-reaction; and
3. Over-dominant

Sometimes, the same success factors can also lead to mistakes or mis-steps. As mentioned above, Mr. Lee tend to make right decisions and have strong resolve and conviction towards his goals and ideas. While he does listen to feedback from his team members, there are times he simply decide to stick to his own ideas.

For instance, Mr. Lee proposed for better pay and salaries for cabinet ministers, because Cabinet Ministsers are also people who need to provide for their families, and will have material needs. He proposed that only good pay, these Ministers will then NOT be tempted by corruption. And only with competitive pay could the government lure key talents from the private sector to join the public one.

This premise is right in the sense that Cabinet Ministers need to be adequately compensated for their contributions. However, when the pay scale starts to be benchmarked against top corporate managers, Singapore suddenly found itself with the highest paid Cabinet many times over, which alienate part of the populace. This is despite the latest research studies that showed that salary will be important, BUT only until a certain point. There will be key talents who will remain in the private sector no matter how high you pay them, and there will be key talents who will join the public sector even if the pay is not comparatively as attractive. Still, Mr. Lee stuck to his own judgement.

In his drive to achieve results quickly and effectively, there are times when Mr. Lee will over-react. In the early 1990’s when there were instances that some chewing gum was the cause of subway train doors not shutting fully, resulting in disruption. Hence, the decision to ban chewing gum nationwide, and thus probably making Singapore the only country in the world to do so.

While this decision certainly was helpful in ensuring a sharp reduction in subway train disruption in the 1990’s, it was in way an over-reaction. Yes, it was irritating to step on or sit on chewing gum, and the disruption to train services needed to be addressed. However, is there a need to enforce a nationwide ban?

Mr. Lee is known to be direct, straight-to-the-point and will dominate in conversations, unless you are well-prepared to give well-thought-out responses. While some people will take personal risk and accountability to give their opinions to Mr. Lee, others may simply choose to comply and keep their opinions to themselves. In a world that increasingly rely on brainpower much more than manual labour, we need to tap into the minds and ideas of our people as much as possible. It would prevent leaders from being blindsided by blind-spots.

In Mr. Lee’s case, he compensated this trait by selecting only highly capable people on his team that will rise to the challenge if they think they had a better solution (some of them, at least). However, if the same leadership quality were to be implemented in a factory in China or other parts of Asia, it may result in team members deferring to the leader, and there could be insufficient feedback, suggestions and creative ideas. In fact, some of your best performers might be disengaged if they don’t feel their ideas are part of your success.

Again, the above examples were sited NOT to comment on the policies, but rather to show that an over-exaggeration of the same leadership qualities could have drawbacks. This is also in no way finding fault with Mr. Lee. Just as with any leader, there is always room for improvement.

Getting the Balance Right

Even a great leader such as Lee Kuan Yew is not immune to making leadership mistakes. After all, leaders are human, and it is human to err.

The question is then, if we seek to emulate Mr. Lee so that we can be can be better leaders ourselves, how could we then achieve a right balance and not be carried away? Here are some tips:

• Find out what worked for Mr. Lee, AND then find out if it’s also going to work for you.
• Find out if you have the abilities or skill-sets to emulate a certain quality, and if not, get your team to compensate for the weakness.
• Get someone to be your coach, who will be honest enough to tell you if you have applied these leadership qualities in the right balance.

The last point being the most important, for even with the clearest of insights and the strongest of expertise, ALL leaders need to have feedback. In Mr. Lee’s eulogy by his main challenger, Opposition Leader Low Thia Khiang mentioned, “From my dealings with Mr Lee in Parliament, I don’t think he was an autocrat who didn’t listen. If you have strong reasons and tight arguments, and can win him over in a thought through policy debate, I think he will consider your views.”

If a great leader such as Lee Kuan Yew, for all his achievements and mis-steps, strive hard to get quality feedback, perhaps that itself will be the most important and foundational leadership quality for us to emulate.

 By C.J. Ng

Executive Director, Directions Consulting

Martin Gabriel recently penned a new book titled “A Guide to The Employment Act and Its Practical Applications” is selling fast. In the first 10 days since its release, more than 150 copies have been sold. In terms of book sales standard, it is reasonably good. World renown COOs from the UK and US have picked up the book due to their investment in Singapore. According to Martin, not all companies that want to set up ‘shop’ in Singapore would want to talk to the EDB only. “Sometimes they talk to us as well” said Martin. They want a full picture of the Industrial Relations climate in Singapore and besides the EDB, these investors also talk to other independent HR Consulting firm, and we are proud to be part of their decision making process. See pictures of CEOs and Managers reading Martin’s book at:

 CEOs’ and Managers reading Martin’s book

Martin also said that “Scores of HR Personnel and Operation Managers have gone through our training programmes, and we do have their contact details.” He elaborated further, “Once we received the books from the printers, it’s a matter of contacting everyone via email to say that the book is on sale, and the orders just kept on streaming in”.

Besides CEOs, another noteworthy group that are reading Martin’s book are practicing Lawyers. Martin said “I know of 11 Lawyers reading the book”. This only shows that Martin is seen as an expert in the area of employment regulations. See pictures of Lawyers reading Martin’s book at:

Lawyers reading Martin’s book 

About 150 copies sold even before the official launch which is scheduled for 6^th February 2015. Moreover, the bookshops will only have it on their shelves in early February. Considering that all these distribution and sales channel have not happened, one would certainly expect more books to be sold in time to come. HRmatters21 has certainly come a long way, and we will continue serving the HR Community with honour.

By Michelle Yeo

In this dynamic world, nothing stays stagnant. Change is constant and inevitable. However, there are signs which can be identified before a change happens. With no natural resources, our Human Resources compensate this absence with efficiency thereby growing our economy into a great nation. So what will these trends & changes be at the workplace?

Flexible Work Arrangements & Changing Priorities

More people are demanding work life balance in which they want more flexible work arrangements. The changing priority in life creates the different demands in different stages of one’s career. Work life exhibits stages of priority (in life). In terms of remuneration, people who start off building their careers are focused on monetary benefits. While people in their mid careers might have families and are more keen in leave benefits to spend time with their families. Whilst people in their late careers might be of an older age, and would thus look towards more medical benefits.

In addition, Employees with family commitments are inclined towards greater work flexibility. Why? It’s simply because having flexible work hours allows an employee to be equally responsible towards corporate as well as family responsibilities. Later on in life, one may regret focusing on career and wealth accumulation if it means neglecting the family and its consequences. Thus, there appears to be a trend of being family oriented among the new generation of employees.

The demand for workers has caused a serious strain in our labour market, which brings us to the next point.

Tight Labour Market

A new trend, seems to have developed. There is an increase in workers seeking Part-Time work. If the trend continues, there could be a shortage of Full-Time workers. In addition, employees today are increasingly more demanding, making it challenging for employers to find potentially suitable candidates. In a way, a more educated population has higher demands. Not to mention the higher cost of living has exacerbated the problem. Raising a family and being a home owner is substantially higher in monetary terms.  

Furthermore, the Food and Beverage (F&B) as well as other existing service industries are facing a labour crunch. F&B jobs are seen as unglamorous amongst the general public. It is mostly occupied by foreign workers, however the tightening of foreign worker quota is making recruitment even more challenging.

Social Media to Attract and Retain Talents

It’s out with the old and in with the new. It is the time to make full use of technology with this IT Savvy generation. The traditional methods of face to face interviews have been converted into online video interviews. Resumes are now replaced with background checks on pending employees’ Facebook or Twitter profiles. In addition an article on Forbes mentioned “58% of people are more likely to want to work at a company if they are using social media and over 20% are more likely to stay at their companies if they are using social media.” So companies, it’s time to get active on social media, and develop your social media departments.

Embracing diversity

With globalisation, accessibility worldwide is a breeze. Unsatisfied locals are moving out of their countries, migrating all over the globe. It’s common now to have at least more than 3 different nationalities at a single workplace or your organisation in more than 3 different countries. Cultural norms or and practises have made it a necessity for organisations to learn to adapt and for employees to learn to adapt with each other. 

Take Singapore for an example. Our multinational country with its multinational organisations have made significant strides move forward. It shows that it is indeed possible to come up with policies for a diversified company, to embrace this diversity and still work at its optimal level.

The importance of succession planning

As time pass, employees skills become obsolete. Organisations have to prepare themselves by training the right group of people and equipping them with the necessary current and changing skills to meet the demands of an ever changing world. Corporations have to start now! Start finding the right people and equipping them with the relevant skills due to a shorter product life cycle. Employers have to constantly update your employees so they would not be lagged behind in this ever changing, dynamic world.