Clear explanations can help reduce the uncertainty and resentment that often accompany retrenchment exercises
WHEN news of GovTech retrenchments broke on Wednesday (Jul 15) evening, a common response – from social media to coffee shop chatter – was sheer incredulity at the idea of layoffs in Singapore’s public service.
While not unprecedented, such layoffs are rare, particularly on this scale: a total of 93 officers leaving, out of some 300-odd whose roles were affected.
For decades, being in the public service has been seen as having an iron rice bowl: a steady job that is hard to lose. Might GovTech’s move challenge this long-established reputation?
Similarly, it might be tempting to take the layoffs as a warning sign of economic trouble. Others might see a cautionary tale about technological progress, amid fears about how the rise of artificial intelligence will affect the labour market.
A closer look at GovTech’s explanation, however, should dispel such attempted generalisations.
If any broad lessons are to be drawn from these layoffs, they might instead be about how to communicate them.
What it isn’t
In a media release, GovTech said that the move “is not driven by artificial intelligence, nor is it a cost-cutting or downsizing exercise”. Of course, many organisations may say the same when it comes to cutting staff.
But while some private-sector layoffs have made headlines for their abruptness or opacity, GovTech was strikingly clear in breaking down why these roles were lost.
The cause was laid out plainly: a shift from project delivery to product ownership, away from managing vendors and towards developing products in-house.
SEE ALSO
Given this context, the change in manpower requirements is inevitable: GovTech will need fewer traditional project and vendor management roles.
By avoiding vagueness or euphemisms, and explaining exactly why roles are being lost, GovTech has established the rationale for retrenchments in a way that brooks little argument.
For affected workers, the job losses may still be difficult to bear – but it is also quite hard to see them as unfair.
Clarity may reduce the scope for speculation, too. This is only the first phase of layoffs at GovTech, with changes set to affect 7 to 9 per cent of the statutory board’s roles in the next two years.
But with clarity as to what roles will be affected, staff in unrelated areas need not worry – in contrast to under-explained retrenchment exercises, where uncertainty may fuel fear.
No one to blame
The lack of euphemisms was striking in another way.
In an internal note to staff, GovTech chairman Chng Kai Fong wrote: “Some colleagues who are leaving have performed well in roles GovTech will need less of. The judgement we made is narrow: whether there is a credible fit with a specific role in the future organisation.”
The sobering message was this: You may have done a good job, but there is no longer a place for you here.
While not everyone might appreciate such frankness, it is arguably both fair and kind: It stresses that the layoff is no fault of the employee, whose skills and experience may be valuable elsewhere.
As Chng added: “It is not a judgement on your commitment, your performance or the value of what you have contributed.”
Crucially, GovTech has tried to keep its workers where possible. Of the 305 employees affected in this first phase, 102 were retained, while another 110 will be retrained.
But as its media release said: “We recognise that not every officer will be able to make this transition. Their deep experience in project delivery and vendor management remains valued and transferable.”
As we are often reminded, reskilling is key in a fast-changing world.
Yet, there are very real limits to this. Recognising these limits, and handling such situations with clarity yet empathy, may become increasingly important across industries.
