Singaporeans’ disengagement at work may be a saving grace

Editor’s note: This is the first in a two-part opinion on the topic of disengagement at work. Read the other here.

“This is an alarm call, so wake up, wake up now” sang Bjork in 1997. One can imagine these lyrics echoing in Singapore boardrooms and business press offices every year when Gallup releases its global workplace report: Low engagement numbers prompt calls to fix organisational culture and re-engage the workforce.

This year, 2026, is no exception. At just 14 per cent against a South-east Asian regional average of 25 per cent and a global average of 20 per cent, Singapore sits near the bottom of the global engagement table. The urge to cry wolf and treat this as a crisis is understandable. It is also a partial interpretation of the real situation and the data.

Before reaching for the panic button, let us consider a different possibility – that Singapore’s low engagement levels may not just reflect apathy or dysfunction, but rather point to a recalibration of how Singaporeans relate to work in an always-on, digitally mediated economy. In other words, the lack of engagement may reflect a deliberate effort to redraw boundaries and preserve energy, and a more pragmatic stance towards work.

Singapore has already seen signs of this boundary-setting instinct. In 2024, the Ministry of Education said teachers need not share their personal phone numbers or respond to work messages after school hours, except in emergencies. Likewise, tripartite guidelines that took effect in December 2024 require employers to formally consider employee requests for flexible adjustments to work hours, location or workload.

The crisis narrative: Alarm call or crying wolf?

If Singapore’s workforce was genuinely in trouble, one would expect to see distress rippling across all the indicators. But that is not what Gallup’s data shows. Loneliness, a marker of psychological disconnection, comes in at just 13 per cent, which is below regional and global averages.

Most strikingly, 40 per cent of Singapore workers report to be thriving in life, ahead of South-east Asian (36 per cent) and global (34 per cent) averages. This is a peculiar profile for a disengaged workforce. Truly disengaged people usually would not report above-average life satisfaction. 

So, what is the data saying overall? There is, indeed, some cause for concern. At 43 per cent, Singapore’s daily stress rate is nearly double the regional average, although it is close to the global mean of 40 per cent. This is reflected in other indicators, such as that most Singaporeans are not getting enough sleep.

But the overall picture suggests that workers may be protecting themselves by keeping more emotional distance from work, maintaining performance under pressure precisely because they are not staking their whole identity on their occupation.

Indeed, what Gallup’s data actually describes is a workforce that has stopped treating its job as the primary source of meaning and identity, while remaining quite satisfied with life overall. This is work-life segregation as a coping strategy and a growing body of research suggests it may be a good one.

Checking in and out

My collaborators and I have studied knowledge workers who were working from home. We discovered that those who used flexibility in their work hours achieved both higher well-being and productivity. Structuring the day so that work is not one uninterrupted 9-to-5 block, but one of many tasks woven into daily life, can help people to better cope with both professional and personal demands.

For instance, parents of young children may wake earlier to work remotely, send the children to school, then resume work later in the morning and finish before the usual peak-hour rush. More importantly, the intermingling of work with other daily activities is not a sign of low commitment, but rather a practical way of managing competing demands that allows workers in the 21st century to remain functional across all their roles.

In line with this, renowned organisational psychologist Sabine Sonnentag has spent decades studying what allows workers to sustain high performance over time. The answer she found is clear: Psychological detachment – the ability to mentally disengage from work when not working – is a strong predictor of sustained energy, well-being, and performance at work.

A workforce that keeps its emotional investment in work calibrated, rather than maximised, may be doing exactly what the evidence suggests. In the era of expectations of constant connection and availability, the ability to mentally clock out is not a symptom of laziness or lack of interest, but a form of self-regulation. Even more, it is a competitive advantage that affords sustained performance.

Out with the old, in with the (disengaged) new

Another important factor to consider when interpreting the data from the Gallup report is the ongoing generational shift in the workforce. Millennials and Gen Z have a different outlook on work than their parents and grandparents did. My research on generational differences in work values suggests that, although the priorities of millennials and Gen Z are not markedly different from those of their predecessors, the level of their expectations is higher across the board.

And the higher the expectations, the easier for organisations to under-deliver, which surely does not help boost engagement. Younger workers are also less willing to tolerate rigid hours, such as being expected to stay in the office until a fixed time, especially after their work is done. Many would rather be judged by output than by presenteeism.

Yet, this is not an alarm call, but rather a reflection of the ongoing value shift and change in what workers expect from employers and vice versa. The lack of engagement may simply reflect a more honest account of what work is and is not in 2026.

Indeed, the younger workforce is generally more dynamic and mobile and less committed to the “one job for life” that their elders espoused, but, to be fair, this is as much the outcome of sociocultural trends as it is of an organisation-driven restructuring of employment relationships that has been ongoing for decades. Most importantly, these workers are still able to do their job well and live a good life overall.

You’ve got a European friend in me

Another important clarification is that Gallup’s engagement measure captures emotional investment in one’s job – namely the degree to which workers feel absorbed in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work. This is a high bar, which reflects deep psychological and emotional investment in work. Is this actually desirable?

In a hyper-competitive, fast-paced environment like Singapore, emotional enthusiasm for one’s job can be an exhausting commodity to maintain. Moreover, what is not captured by Gallup’s measure are more relevant metrics, such as whether workers are doing their jobs well, living good lives or contributing meaningfully to the economy.

Another caveat of the engagement metrics is that cultural differences play an important role. Americans tend to exhibit high engagement (31 per cent) because being emotionally involved in one’s job is seen as a necessary ingredient for professional success there. But this is not the case everywhere. Europe registers just 12 per cent engagement on Gallup’s scale – even lower than Singapore – but almost half of the workforce (49 per cent) is thriving.

Yet, no dominant narrative describes Europeans as a workforce in crisis just because the Swiss (8 per cent engaged) completely check out on the weekend or because the Dutch (14 per cent engaged) do not set meetings that start at 4pm or later. A concrete possibility is that disengagement has become a cultural characteristic in Singapore as much as in many European countries. The European example is a particularly illuminating one because it shows low engagement does not automatically mean poor outcomes.

Reframing the question

Singapore’s employers and policymakers would do well to resist the impulse of treating a 14 per cent engagement figure as a number to be driven upwards at any cost. Low engagement should not automatically be read as a failure.

Rather than asking how to raise engagement, the more useful question is whether workers feel that the current conditions are sustainable: Are they recovering well, living meaningful lives and performing well on the job? Can they keep doing so? If so, pushing for ever-higher engagement may not help, and could even undermine the balance that allows people to perform sustainably.

A good takeaway is that employers should focus less on emotional buy-in as a target in itself, and more on whether workers are productive, healthy and able to sustain their work performance over time. On that note, the more appropriate Bjork quote would be, “There’s more to life than this”.