FWA Performance Management: From Presenteeism to Outcome-Based

The Era of Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs)

The workplace as we know it is evolving. With Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) becoming a defining feature of modern employment, organisations are rethinking how work gets done. FWAs include remote work, flexible hours, compressed workweeks, and part-time work – arrangements that give employees greater autonomy over when, where, and how they work. When implemented well, FWAs have the potential to increase productivity, job satisfaction and talent retention.

In Singapore, FWAs have been championed as a strategic approach to fostering work-life harmony and inclusive employment. A significant milestone came with the introduction of the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements Requests (TG-FWAR) by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), which took effect on 1 December 2024. These guidelines require employers to establish formal processes for managing FWA requests and to give each request proper consideration.

While these developments mark progress toward a more adaptive and inclusive work culture, they also raise important questions: What does this shift mean for employers? And more specifically, how can performance be managed effectively in a workplace where physical presence is no longer the standard? 

Employer Concerns Around FWAs

While many organisations are open to FWAs, concerns about managing performance remain. Through feedback collected by TAFEP in 2024, top concerns among employers in granting FWA requests include:

• Potential decrease in performance and output (29%)

• Nature of job roles deemed not feasible/practical for flexibility (27%)

• Negative impact on the organisation’s ability to meet customer needs (17%)

• Increased cost to accommodate requests (14%)

• Other concerns (13%)

While these concerns are understandable, they often stem from deeper uncertainties about how to measure productivity when employees are not physically present. Without visible cues of engagement – such as being seen at one’s desk or staying late in the office – employers may feel that control and productivity are diminished. This hesitation may prevent FWAs from being fully embraced, contrarily reinforcing outdated assumptions about what productivity looks like.

These concerns point towards a broader imperative: the need for a shift in mindset for how performance should be assessed. Though productivity is harder to observe in flexible work settings, this shift also presents a timely opportunity – one that challenges organisations to rethink their performance frameworks.

Rather than viewing FWA as a barrier to productivity, leaders could see it as a prompt to embed trust, accountability, and clarity into their systems. With the right tools, restructured workflows, and intentional leadership, collaboration and communication can continue to thrive. While adopting FWAs may demand upfront investments – in time, money, resources and manpower – they ultimately foster more agile, resilient, and future-ready workplaces.

What’s truly at stake is not simply where work happens, but how performance is measured. Holding onto traditional notions of productivity rooted in visibility risks undermining FWA efforts. To move forward, organisations must transition from presenteeism to outcome-based performance management – anchoring success in results, not physical presence.

Presenteeism vs Outcome-Based Management

Presenteeism is typically referred to the act of being physically present at work – even when unwell or disengaged – with the assumption that visibility is equated to productivity. In today’s flexible and remote work environments, this has evolved into “visibility presenteeism,” where employees feel compelled to remain constantly online, reply to messages instantly, or extend their virtual presence late into the evening – not necessarily to work more, but to appear present, available and engaged.

This mindset places undue emphasis on time and presence, rather than value delivered and outcomes achieved.

In contrast, outcome-based performance management shifts the focus to results. It evaluates employees based on their ability to meet clearly defined, measurable goals – regardless of when or where the work is done. This approach empowers individuals to take ownership of their work, exercise autonomy in how they manage their time, and be held accountable for the outcomes they deliver.

As FWAs become more common, this shift is essential. In flexible work environments, physical presence alone is no longer a reliable proxy for productivity. What matters most is not how visible employees are, but what they achieve.

Challenges in Shifting Mindsets

Nonetheless, transitioning from a culture rooted in presenteeism to one centred around outcomes is no small feat. It requires unlearning long-held management habits – like equating physical presence with productivity – and embracing a new way of working. Managers may feel uneasy about losing day-to-day oversight when employees are no longer within sight. Others may struggle to relinquish traditional control mechanisms, fearing that performance may slip without direct supervision.

These anxieties are not uncommon. They reflect a broader cultural shift that both leaders and teams should make to redefine what effective management looks like in a flexible work environment.

To overcome these challenges, organisations are encouraged to cultivate a workplace culture grounded in trust, transparency, and accountability. Leaders play a pivotal role in setting this tone. By modelling open communication, setting clear expectations, and reinforcing mutual accountability, they can create an environment where outcomes take precedence over appearances. Without strong leadership buy-in, even the most well-intentioned FWA policies risk falling short.

Defining FWA Expectations for Better Performance Management

To make outcome-based performance management work, organisations must begin with one thing: clear expectations. These can be structured through different types of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):

• Outcome KPIs: These focus on end results. For example, increased revenue, project completion rates, or customer satisfaction improvements.

• Output KPIs: These measure tangible deliverables. For instance: number of reports submitted, proposals written, or marketing campaigns executed.

• Process KPIs: These track the efficiency and consistency of work processes. Examples include response times, adherence to procedures, or collaboration metrics.

  
  

These KPIs should be agreed upon collaboratively and revisited regularly. When employees understand what is expected, they are empowered to meet those expectations in the way that works best for them – whether at home, in the office, or a hybrid of both.

Frequent check-ins, progress reviews, and open communication further strengthen this approach. When expectations are aligned early and supported with transparency, organisations build the trust required for flexibility and accountability to coexist.

Conclusion: Leading the Change

Ultimately, the success of FWAs is not determined by policies alone, but by the mindset and behaviours of an organisation’s leaders. Implementing FWAs calls for a fundamental shift – from relying on physical presence to evaluating based on tangible outcomes and performance. Leaders must go beyond traditional metrics and recognise the long-term value FWAs offer.

At the heart of effective implementation lies a leader’s ability to cultivate a culture rooted in trust, transparency, and accountability. By modelling this shift from presenteeism to outcome-based performance, leaders can create a more agile and engaged workforce.

In this new world of work, it’s not about where people are, but what they deliver. And with the right structures in place, performance can thrive – wherever work happens.