中文标题待翻译

Most Singapore office workers know the ritual. A message lands at 10.47pm. It is not urgent. You answer it within 90 seconds anyway, not because the work demands it, but because you want someone to notice that you answered it within 90 seconds.

It turns out that performance is playing to a near-empty theatre.

The Jobstreet by SEEK Singapore Workplace Culture Study 2026, conducted by Milieu Insight among 600 employees and jobseekers and 200 hiring decision-makers, finds that bosses are mostly not watching the clock. They say they want initiative and outcomes. Workers, meanwhile, are busy proving something else entirely.

Also Read: When global uncertainty becomes workplace anxiety

The numbers make the mismatch stark. Some 49 per cent of employers say taking initiative and delivering outcomes is what they value most; only 32 per cent of employees say that is how they demonstrate commitment. Instead, 63 per cent of employees lean on responding quickly, a behaviour just 39 per cent of employers prize. And 52 per cent of workers signal dedication through availability outside working hours, which only 18 per cent of employers actually rate.

In plain terms, Singapore’s workforce is optimising hard for a KPI its managers barely track.

The anxiety is imported

Why would rational people exhaust themselves chasing the wrong metric? The report’s answer is that workplace stress has stopped being homegrown. It is less about the difficult manager or the overloaded sprint, and more about forces arriving from outside the office: the inflation print and the AI roadmap.

Both sides name the same culprits. AI and automation are cited as drivers of workplace change by 56 per cent of employees and 53 per cent of employers. Economic uncertainty, inflation and cost of living follow at 53 per cent and 46 per cent respectively.

Where they part ways is in what that fear means. Employees’ top concern is salary growth that keeps pace with living costs (60 per cent), followed by job security (48 per cent), work-life balance (37 per cent) and rising competition for roles (33 per cent). Employers, by contrast, list the impact of AI on workflows and teams (52 per cent), managing salary expectations amid rising costs (49 per cent) and restructuring towards leaner teams (24 per cent).

Read those two lists side by side and a feedback loop appears. When leadership answers volatility by tightening budgets and accelerating automation, it feeds the job-security fears that push staff into hyper-visibility. Being permanently reachable becomes a cheap insurance policy against becoming the next line on a restructuring spreadsheet.

This is not a Singapore-only phenomenon. Across Southeast Asia, the post-funding-winter instinct to run lean, AI-first teams instead of hiring has made “do more with fewer people” the default operating mantra, while AI is already set to redesign how companies work, not merely which jobs survive.

An expensive habit with no payout

The always-on norm is now mainstream. Some 63 per cent of employees feel the need to be always-on almost every day (32 per cent) or a few times a week (31 per cent). Employers are not innocent bystanders: 85 per cent say their organisation expects staff to be available somewhat often (62 per cent) or often (23 per cent). Tellingly, 55 per cent of employees and 45 per cent of employers call it a shared responsibility.

Also Read: Burnout isn’t just personal, it’s becoming an operations problem

The cost is real. Among those under always-on pressure, 63 per cent report lower energy, 47 per cent report reduced job satisfaction and 22 per cent call the culture unsustainable because of burnout. Some 43 per cent rely on taking leave simply to cope, and 9 per cent say they lack the time or energy to recover at all. Annual leave, in other words, has become a repair shop rather than a holiday.

The return is close to nil. Some 62 per cent say always-on working has made no difference to their career progression, and 59 per cent see no difference in recognition. On work quality, 52 per cent see no change and 18 per cent report a decline; only 30 per cent report an improvement. Just 6 per cent believe being always-on is the main route to advancement.

If a fund manager pitched that risk-return profile, no LP in Singapore would sign the cheque.

The bill eventually lands on the balance sheet. Across the wider workforce, 36 per cent of employees are actively exploring new opportunities. Among those feeling always-on pressure, 10 per cent are actively looking for an exit, 11 per cent want out but feel unable to leave, and 14 per cent have disengaged to doing only what their job description requires. Founders who still treat this as a soft HR issue should look at the case for building burnout-resistant teams as an operating discipline.

Employers know. They are spending elsewhere

Here is the uncomfortable part. Some 81 per cent of employers who expect always-on behaviour acknowledge its long-term downside, chiefly burnout (66 per cent) and disengagement or turnover (15 per cent). Yet 48 per cent have no plans to introduce related support policies.

The budget tells the same story. AI and digital skills training (34 per cent), technology tools (25 per cent), flexible work arrangements (23 per cent) and upskilling (22 per cent) top the investment list. Wellbeing and mental health (14 per cent), workload management (13 per cent), manager development (12 per cent) and extra hiring to ease pressure (12 per cent) trail behind.

Even the support that exists is largely invisible. Half of employees say they receive no organisational support at all, against just 22 per cent of employers who admit to offering none. Workload conversations are offered by 40 per cent of employers but recognised by only 22 per cent of employees; boundary protections, 36 per cent versus 19 per cent; confidential feedback channels, 33 per cent versus 13 per cent. Support that lives only on the HR intranet is, functionally, not support.

The irony is hard to miss in a city that tops Southeast Asia on the Best Workplaces in Asia 2026 list. Neighbours are improvising their own coping mechanisms: in the Philippines, workers are already using AI as a burnout shield.

A caveat worth stating: this is a Singapore-only sample of 800 respondents, employer answers are self-reported, and a jobs platform has an obvious interest in workers being restless. Still, the direction of the gaps is too consistent to wave away.

What would actually change behaviour

The report proposes three shifts.

• First, move from availability to outcomes: define performance around milestones and business impact, and say explicitly that a fast reply at midnight is not a commitment metric.
• Second, move from flexibility to sustainable work design, with regular workload reviews, clear asynchronous norms and a shared definition of what is genuinely urgent.
• Third, move from support on paper to support in practice, by training line managers to hold honest conversations about workload, pay and restructuring.

Also Read: The AI layoff trap points straight at Southeast Asia

The sharpest point concerns AI. Upskilling will not calm anyone if staff suspect it is a prelude to headcount cuts. It has to be tied visibly to internal mobility and career pathways, especially as AI begins to reshape entry-level tech roles.

Singapore’s Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, in force since December 2024, cover how staff ask for flexibility, not when they may switch off. Until employers draw that line themselves, the 10.47pm reply will keep doing what the data says it does: costing workers dearly and earning them almost nothing.

The post AI and inflation are driving Singapore’s workplace anxiety. Employers are spending on the wrong fix appeared first on e27.