Work-life balance tops Singapore EVP rankings, but flexibility alone won't cut it

For the third consecutive year, work-life balance has overtaken salary and benefits as Singapore's top employer value proposition (EVP) factor, according to Randstad's 2025 Employer Brand Research. The shift spans every generation from Gen Z to Gen X.

Yet the same report reveals a paradox: while balance drives retention, 45% of disengaged employees still cite inadequate compensation as their primary frustration.

To unpack what this sustained shift truly means, and why well-intentioned balance initiatives often fall flat, HRD Asia spoke with Dr. Wang Jiunwen, associate professor of the Human Resource Management Programme at the S R Nathan School of Human Development, Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS).

A redefinition of success

The three-year dominance signals more than changing preferences, Wang says.

"This is more than just a trend… It reflects a redefinition of what success and meaningful work look like today," she explains.

"Traditionally, success was equated with salary, status, and job security. Now, more employees are seeking a life that works, not just a job that pays. Fulfilment, autonomy, and well-being have become non-negotiables in how people evaluate their careers."

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this shift. "The experience of global disruption forced people to confront their mortality, re-evaluate their priorities, and bring personal well-being and relationships into sharper focus," Wang says.

"In doing so, it changed the very nature of what people want from work… Not just productivity and compensation, but sustainability, meaning, and space for life."

At its core, this is about agency. "Employees increasingly seek control over how, when, and where they work," Wang explains.

She notes that work-life balance has become a proxy for autonomy and respect, signalling a desire for greater self-authorship.

The shift also reflects changing power dynamics.

"In a world of talent shortages and heightened mobility, workers are no longer willing to tolerate jobs that erode their well-being or conflict with their values," Wang says.

The EVP itself has fundamentally changed. "The EVP is no longer just about attracting talent; it's about earning their trust and sustaining it," she adds.

Employees are asking a different question now.

"The workforce is no longer asking, 'What do I get for my work?' but 'What does work take from my life… And is it worth it?'" Wang says.

From separation to integration

The meaning of work-life balance has evolved far beyond its original scope, Wang explains.

"Once understood primarily as a matter of managing working hours and ensuring time off, it was largely about separating work and personal life to avoid burnout," she says.

"While these elements remain important, they no longer capture the full picture."

Today's understanding is broader. "It now includes autonomy, emotional sustainability, and control over one's time and energy," Wang says.

"Employees are not just asking for fewer hours… They are seeking the ability to shape how, when, and where they work, in ways that align with their personal lives, values, and rhythms."

The shift has moved from segregation to integration.

"People increasingly blend personal and professional roles throughout the day, such as taking a midday break for exercise or caregiving, then logging in later," Wang notes.

"The goal isn't simply 'balance' in a time-tracking sense... It's a more holistic sense of well-being and sustainability."

Psychological dimensions now feature prominently.

"Work-life balance also now includes emotional and psychological dimensions: feeling safe to set boundaries without guilt, being in a culture that supports recovery and rest, and having work that does not deplete one's mental health," she explains.

Work-life balance has matured from a policy conversation to a cultural and existential one, she concludes.

Why compensation still drives disengagement

The paradox—balance retains, but pay disengages—reveals how employees weigh immediate needs against long-term satisfaction, Wang explains.

"While short-term needs like fair pay remain [foundational], without which frustration and disengagement are inevitable, long-term satisfaction is increasingly shaped by factors that go beyond the paycheck," she says.

"In this new calculus, compensation is the entry ticket, but balance and wellbeing are the reasons people stay."

Balance itself is now understood as compensation. She says that balance and wellbeing are now viewed as forms of compensation in their own right: valuable currencies that reflect respect, trust, and dignity.

"The ability to set boundaries, take care of oneself, and maintain a sense of control over one's life is now central to employee loyalty and engagement," she says.

"Employees are weighing their present survival needs against their future selves, choosing not just what meets their needs today, but what preserves their energy, purpose, and humanity over time," she adds.

"This shift is a clear call for organisations to move beyond transactional employment models and build workplaces where people don't just perform, but where they can flourish."

Where balance policies fail

Most organisations overlook systemic issues when designing balance-focused policies, Wang warns.

"One of the most common blind spots is the assumption that flexibility equals balance," she says.

"In practice, if workloads remain excessive and the pace of work is relentless, flexibility simply shifts the burden rather than alleviating it. Employees may feel compelled to stretch their work across odd hours or weekends just to keep up, defeating the purpose of flexibility altogether."

Culture trumps policy every time. "Even when policies support work-life balance on paper, workplace behaviours may tell a different story," Wang explains.

"If leaders routinely send emails after hours or implicitly reward those who sacrifice personal time for work, employees quickly learn that setting boundaries is risky. In these environments, culture, more than policy, sets the real rules."

Individualising burnout misses the root cause. "Companies may invest in wellness apps, mindfulness sessions, or resilience training, assuming that employees need better coping mechanisms," she says.

But true burnout typically stems from structural issues like lack of autonomy, poor role clarity, unmanageable expectations, or toxic management, Wang explains.

"Without addressing these root causes, wellness efforts can feel like surface-level fixes."

Feedback loops are often absent. "Many organisations implement balance initiatives but fail to build feedback loops or accountability," Wang says.

"Without mechanisms to track impact, gather feedback, and iterate, these policies can quickly become stale or symbolic. When employees see that balance is promoted in words but unsupported in practice, it creates cynicism and disengagement."

Building true psychological detachment

In high-performance cultures where overwork still gets rewarded, creating genuine detachment requires intentional design, Wang explains.

"One of the most impactful strategies is redefining performance expectations around outcomes rather than hours or visibility," Wang says.

She says that when organisations continue to reward 'face time,' responsiveness, or being constantly online, employees feel pressure to remain mentally tethered to work.

Thus, leaders must model boundaries.

"When managers take leave, avoid after-hours emails, and share openly about how they manage boundaries, it legitimises detachment," she says.

"Leadership behaviour sets the tone for team norms, and when leaders consistently model healthy disconnection, it signals that balance is not just allowed… It's expected."

Team norms create mutual accountability. "These 'working charters' often include norms such as no meetings during certain hours, no weekend emails unless urgent, or shared practices for end-of-day wrap-ups," Wang notes.

"By co-creating these norms, teams build psychological safety and mutual accountability around detachment."

Structure must support individual practices.

"Organisational structures must support them. That means reviewing workload allocations, setting clear role expectations, and aligning reward systems so that those who protect their time aren't penalised," she emphasises.

"Otherwise, well-meaning interventions become empty gestures."

The behaviours that undermine balance

Even well-crafted policies fail when daily organisational behaviors send contradictory messages, Wang explains.

"Many organisations reward visibility over value," she says.

"When employees who are always online, respond to emails at all hours, or sacrifice personal time are consistently praised or promoted, it reinforces the idea that being 'always on' is what's truly valued, regardless of formal flexibility or wellbeing policies."

Manager behavior matters most. "Even when top leadership rolls out progressive policies, if direct managers continue to schedule late meetings, call during leave, or express frustration when people log off on time, it sends a strong signal that work-life initiatives are not to be taken seriously," Wang explains.

"Since managers shape the day-to-day experience of work, their buy-in is essential."

Boundary-setters face quiet penalties.

"Employees who take their full leave, avoid after-hours communication, or push back on unrealistic demands may find themselves quietly excluded from key opportunities or labelled as 'less committed,'" Wang notes.

"This creates a climate of fear and discourages genuine use of balance-related benefits."

What gets rewarded wins. "Companies may claim to value wellbeing, but if KPIs, bonuses, and promotions are still tied to output at all costs, employees will prioritise what's measured… Not what's marketed," she says.

She says that the biggest threat to work-life initiatives is cultural inconsistency.

"If the systems, behaviours, and rewards in an organisation continue to glorify overwork, even the best policies will fall flat."

When crisis tests commitment

Can balance survive performance pressure during downturns? Wang acknowledges the tension but argues it's not inevitable.

"In times of uncertainty or pressure, organisations often fall back on traditional models of productivity: longer hours, faster delivery, leaner teams," Wang explains.

"When resources are tight and targets remain high, balance can start to feel like a luxury."

But the best companies recognise interdependence. "Forward-thinking organisations are beginning to recognise that performance and balance are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are interdependent," she says.

"Sustained high performance requires cognitive freshness, emotional resilience, and psychological safety, all of which are enhanced by rest, autonomy, and time away from work."

The most successful and innovative companies are those that build cadence into their cultures: periods of high intensity followed by deliberate recovery, just like elite athletes, she adds.

Pressure reveals true values. "It's easy to honour work-life principles when things are going well. It's much harder but more revealing when pressures mount," Wang says.

"This is when companies show whether balance is truly a core value or a conditional benefit."

She notes that the goal should not be to choose between balance and performance, but to design environments where both can coexist and reinforce one another, even in challenging times.

Wang's central message is clear: work-life balance has evolved from a scheduling issue to a fundamental rethinking of how organisations design work, measure success, and build trust with their people.