Grants, incentives to be given to employers that redesign jobs for flexible work: Jasmin Lau

Flexible-load jobs are roles redesigned so people can work at different rhythms. The article says some people call them fractional jobs, while others call them part-time jobs. The central idea is not merely reducing hours. It is changing how the work itself is organised. This matters for people who need flexibility during different periods of life.

An employer might split one traditional role into separate task bundles. One worker could handle certain duties during available hours, while another completes different duties at another pace. Pay could then vary according to each worker’s tasks, outputs and outcomes. The arrangement does not have to last forever.

The government has not settled a single definition or national model. It is still studying suitable industries and roles. The first version will be tested with selected employers, with grants and incentives supporting redesign. Workers must also understand that income may differ from a fixed-hours arrangement.

Making flexible roles possible requires employers to redesign the job itself. The article describes “bundling the tasks differently” so that workers can operate at different rhythms. This is more substantial than offering the same job with fewer scheduled hours. It changes which responsibilities belong together and how performance is assessed.

For example, one role could be divided into several task groups. Different workers might take responsibility for different duties, based on the time and capacity they have. Their contribution could then be assessed through the tasks, outputs and outcomes they deliver. The article does not specify particular occupations or task bundles yet.

That detail is still being worked out. The government is studying which industries and roles are most suitable. Employers will first test redesigned jobs in selected sectors. Grants and incentives are intended to help them undertake this experimentation, while workers accept that pay may vary with delivered results.

Singapore’s flexible-work policy is planned as a targeted experiment, not an immediate national programme. Acting Manpower Minister Jasmin Lau said the government is still studying which sectors and roles should go first. This cautious approach recognises that redesigned jobs may work differently across industries.

The first stage will involve some employers in some sectors. They will test whether tasks can be bundled effectively and whether workers can operate at different rhythms. The government will provide grants and incentives to employers taking part. The article does not name the initial industries or give a timetable for expanding beyond the pilots.

The policy could eventually support people who need flexibility for many reasons, not only marriage or parenthood. However, the starting point will be limited. The government wants evidence from participating employers before attempting national scale. That testing should reveal which job designs work and how pay linked to outputs affects workers.

Redesigning jobs can require employers to rethink responsibilities, performance measures and pay. Grants and incentives would help offset the effort involved. They could make experimentation more attractive, especially when employers are unsure whether a new arrangement will work in practice. The article presents support as an encouragement, not a guarantee of success.

The mechanism is straightforward. An employer receives government support to reorganise a role and bundle its tasks differently. Workers may then perform selected duties at different rhythms, with payment connected to tasks, outputs and outcomes. The support helps employers test this structure with less initial resistance or financial risk.

The policy will begin with some employers in selected sectors. The government wants to learn which industries and roles suit the approach before expanding it. Incentives therefore support a pilot-and-learn strategy. They may encourage participation, but employers still need workable job designs and workers who understand the possible pay changes.

When salaries are tied more closely to delivered work, workers may no longer receive the same predictable amount associated with fixed hours. The article warns that people in flexible-load roles must understand they may be paid differently according to their tasks, outputs and outcomes. It does not state a specific payment formula or guarantee a particular income level.

For example, two workers could take different task bundles or contribute at different rhythms. Their pay could therefore differ if their responsibilities, outputs or outcomes differ. A worker might use the arrangement during caregiving and later move into another role when more available. The flexibility comes with a closer connection between work delivered and money received.

Income stability will depend on how employers design roles and payments. The government is still studying suitable sectors and will test the idea with selected employers. Grants may support redesign, but they do not remove the need for workers to weigh flexibility against potentially changing pay.

The workplace “right to disconnect” is described as a useful practice in which employees are not expected to remain reachable all the time. Ms Lau said leaders, especially in the public service, should practise it by not expecting employees to respond on weekends. The aim is to protect personal time without removing flexibility.

Her own example shows the tension. She cannot work during certain hours because she picks up her children from preschool. She stops work, then returns at 10, 11 or 12 when she can. A strict rule banning work during those later hours could remove a schedule that helps her manage both responsibilities.

The public service could model the practice because it is a large employer. Ms Lau cautioned against prescribing identical working hours for everyone. The broader lesson is that disconnecting should reduce unwanted expectations, while flexible arrangements should still allow workers to choose when they can complete their work.

Flexible jobs change the balance between work, pay and caregiving. Workers may gain more control over when they contribute, especially during periods when family duties limit their availability. Employers may gain a way to use specific skills or tasks without requiring one standard rhythm. But pay may become less predictable because it can follow outputs and outcomes rather than fixed hours.

The key mechanism is job redesign. Employers bundle tasks into separate responsibilities, and workers complete those bundles at different rhythms. Government grants and incentives help employers test the arrangement. A worker might use one role while caring for children or parents, then move to another role when those duties change.

This is not presented as a universal solution. Singapore will begin with selected employers and sectors, while studying which roles fit best. The policy could support anyone needing flexibility, but its success will depend on workable task bundles, acceptable pay arrangements and evidence from the pilots.