National values-assessment-presentation-2012

Copyright © aAdvantage Consulting 2012. All Intellectual Property Reserved. 1

How we view Singapore society and the workplace as these are today, and what we want them to be 23rd August, 2012


Contents

1. Introduction

2. Results

i. How Singapore Residents View the Current and Desired Singapore Society

ii. How Singapore Residents View the Current and Desired Singapore Workplace

Vincent Ho, Director, aAdvantage Consulting Email: [email protected]

Tel: 6853 2658

For all queries on the survey and results, please contact:

mailto:[email protected]



Copyright © aAdvantage Consulting 2012. All Intellectual Property Reserved. 3 www.aadvantage-consulting.com

01 Introduction


Introduction

Objectives of the Study

The survey examined what Singapore Residents consider are:

The values and behaviours that best describe them at a personal level;

Their perception of Singapore society and their workplace as these are today, and what they want them to be, ideally.

• Obtain preliminary insights into what matters to Singapore Residents.

• Generate meaningful dialogue about the society and workplace environment that Singapore Residents desire.


Introduction

Maslow’s Needs to Barrett’s Consciousness

Know and Understand

Physiological

Safety

Love & Belonging

Self-esteem Abraham Maslow

Know and Understand

N e e d s C o n s c i o u s n e s s

Self-Actualization

Richard Barrett

Introduction

The Barrett Seven Levels of Personal Consciousness

Selfless service Being your purpose. Compassion, humility, forgiveness. Caring for humanity and the planet.

Making a positive difference in the world Living your purpose. Empathy, alliances, cooperation, intuition, mentoring and focus on wellbeing (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual).

Finding meaning in existence Finding your purpose. Integrity, honesty, authenticity, passion, enthusiasm, creativity and humour & fun.

Letting go of fears. Finding the courage to grow and develop. Adaptability, life long learning, continuous renewal and personal growth.

Feeling a sense of self-worth Confidence, competence, self-reliance. Fear: I am not enough. Leads to need for respect and recognition and power, authority or status seeking.

Feeling protected and loved Family, friendship, loyalty, safety. Fear: I am not loved enough. Leads to jealousy, blame, and discrimination.

Satisfying physiological and survival needs Health, security, financial stability. Fear: I do not have enough. Leads to control, domination, demanding, and impatience.

Self

inte

rest

C

om

mo

n G

oo

d

Introduction

The Barrett Seven Levels of National Consciousness

Global sustainability Human rights, long-term perspective, ecological resilience, peace, focus on future generations and inter-generational equity. Global perspective.

Strategic alliances and regional partnerships Regional collaboration, environmental awareness, quality of life, community involvement and sustainability. Caring for nature and for the disadvantaged.

Strong cohesive culture Shared vision and values. Fairness, transparency, trust, shared vision and values, citizen dialogue and social cohesion. Positive collective spirit.

Democratic processes and continuous renewal Freedom, equality, empowerment, accountability, adaptability, shared values, entrepreneurship and consensus.

Institutional effectiveness Law abiding, community/national pride, governmental efficiency and high quality public services. Bureaucracy, central control, elitism, complacency, and apathy.

Sense of belonging & social stability Neighbourliness, conflict resolution, racial harmony and a focus on family and friendships. Inequality, discrimination, intolerance, hatred, and loneliness/isolation.

Economic stability and citizen security Prosperity, health care, employment, emergency services/defence and social safety nets. Corruption, violence, poverty, environmental pollution, and greed.

Co

mm

on

Go

od

Se

lf in

tere

st

Introduction

The Barrett Seven Levels of Organisational Consciousness

Service to humanity and societal contribution Social responsibility, long-term perspective, ethics, compassion and humility.

Internal/External collaboration, community involvement Environmental awareness, employee fulfilment, coaching/mentoring and caring for the local community.

Sense of purpose & strong internal community Shared vision and values. Commitment, creativity, enthusiasm, integrity, honesty, generosity, fairness, openness, transparency and trust.

On-going improvement and employee participation Adaptability, accountability, empowerment, teamwork, goals orientation and continuous improvement.

High performance systems and processes Reliability, quality, efficiency, productivity and excellence. Bureaucracy, hierarchy, confusion, and complacency.

Positive relationships that support organisation needs Loyalty, open communication, customer satisfaction. Manipulation, blame, favouritism, and secrecy.

Financial viability and people safety Financial performance, organisational growth and employee health and safety. Control, greed, exploitation, and micro-management.

Co

mm

on

Go

od

Se

lf in

tere

st


Introduction

Completed National / Regional Values Assessments

Australia

Belgium

Bhutan

Brazil

Canada

Denmark

Finland

France

Iceland

Latvia

Macedonia (r)

Singapore

(r) = Region

South Africa

Spain (r)

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom (r)

USA


Introduction

• 2,000 Singapore residents (Singapore Citizens & Permanent Residents) were interviewed.

• Survey period: June to July 2012.

• Stratified quota sampling across Gender, Age, Housing Type across all zones.

• Data collection through Face-to-Face Interview (Street intercept & Households) and Online Survey.

Methodology


Introduction

Respondent Profile Gender Age Male ,

981, 49.1%Female,

1,019, 51.0%

Female, 1,019, 51.0%

Male, 981, 49.1% 65 and above, 216, 10.8%

46-64 years, 686, 34.3%

31-45 years, 596, 29.8%

15-30 years, 502, 25.1%

Housing Type

HDB 1-3 rooms,

396, 19.8%

HDB 4-5 rooms &

Executive, 1,257, 62.9%

Private Apartmen

t / Condominium, 192,

9.6%

Landed property

(incl. shop house),

155, 7.8%

Landed Property (incl. shop house), 155, 7.8%

Private Apartment / Condominium,

192, 9.6%

HDB 1-3 rooms, 396, 19.8%

HDB 4-5 rooms & Executive, 1,257, 62.9%


Introduction

Assessment Questions

Respondents were asked the following three questions. For each question, respondents were required to pick exactly 10 values and behaviours from a list that:

Soci

eta

l O

rgan

isat

ion

al

1. Best reflect who you are.

2. Best reflect the Singapore society (Singaporeans and PRs) today.

3. Best reflect what you desire of the Singapore society (Singaporeans and PRs).

4. Best reflect your workplace today.

5. Best reflect what you desire in your workplace.


Introduction

Definitions of Terms Used

The following terms are used in this report: 1. Kiasu: A local colloquialism in the Hokkien dialect that directly translates as

“scared to lose”. It is generally used to describe selfish and inconsiderate behaviours.

2. Kiasi: A local colloquialism that directly translates as “scared to die”. It is generally used to describe over-cautious or extremely risk-averse behaviours.

3. Potentially limiting values and behaviours: Values and behaviours that are not intrinsically negative, but could be harmful if lived to excess.


02 (i) How Singapore Residents View the

Current and Desired Singapore

Society

What Singapore Residents Consider are the Values and

Behaviours that Best Describe Themselves

I = Individual R = Relationship

P = Positive L = Potentially Limiting (white circle)

O = Organisational S = Societal

Level

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IRS (P)=6-4-0 IRS (L)=0-0-0

2%

1%

1%

10%

16%

8%

20%

27%

7%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 Singapore Residents

family 936 2(R)

friendship 708 2(R)

health 648 1(I)

happiness 603 5(I)

caring 546 2(R)

honesty 510 5(I)

responsibility 506 4(I)

well-being (physical/ emotional/ mental/ spiritual)

474 6(I)

respect 468 2(R)

balance (home/work) 444 4(I)


4. Do we observe these in our daily interactions with people? What impact does it have?

• Family • Friendship • Balance (home / work) • Happiness

• Health • Caring • Well-being (physical / emotional

/ mental / spiritual)

• Responsibility • Respect • Honesty

1. What is the definition of “balance” between work, family / friends and self?

2. Does caring extend beyond the immediate family and friends?

3. To what extent are we meeting our well-being / health needs?



How Singapore Residents Perceive the Singapore Society as

it is Today

17%

7%

17%

14%

4%

6%

15%

6%

6%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Level

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IROS (P)=1-0-1-0 IROS (L)=4-3-1-0

Singapore Residents

kiasu1 (L) 1154 1(I)

competitive (L) 823 3(O)

self-centred (L) 653 3(R)

material needs 628 1(I)

kiasi2 (L) 600 1(I)

deteriorating values (L) 591 3(I)

elitism (L) 573 3(R)

blame (L) 494 2(R)

uncertainty about the future (L) 470 1(I)

security 440 1(O) Percentage of Potentially Limiting Values and Behaviours = 41% I = Individual

R = Relationship P = Positive L = Potentially Limiting (white circle)



How Singapore Residents Perceive the Singapore Society as

it is Today • Kiasu (L) • Competitive (L) • Self-centred (L) • Material needs • Elitism (L)

1. How do we measure success today? Does that drive these behaviours?

• Deteriorating values (L) • Blame (L)

2. Are we experiencing a fall in moral and ethical standards?

3. Are we taking personal responsibility?

• Uncertainty about the future (L) • Kiasi (L)

4. What about the future that we are uncertain about?

5. Will we be held back given our risk averseness

• Security 6. What makes us secure?


Percentage of “Potentially Limiting Values and Behaviours” by Countries

7263 62 60 57 56 54 53 51 48

43 42 42 41 3932

2621

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Ve

nezu

ela

Icel

and

Sout

h Af

rica

Arge

ntin

a

Fran

ce

USA

Latv

ia

Belg

ium

Braz

il

Finl

and

UK

(NW

)

Aust

ralia

Swed

en

Sing

apor

e

Spai

n…

Cana

da

Switz

erla

nd

Den

mar

k

Bhut

an

How Other Countries Perceive their Current Society

Level

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IROS (P)=0-0-0-0 | IROS (L)= 2-3-5-0

United States of America

Level

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IROS (P)= 0-1-2-1 | IROS (L)= 2-0-4-0

Finland

Level

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IROS (P)= 3-1-2-1 | IROS (L)= 1-0-2-0

Switzerland

blame (L) 820 2(R)

bureaucracy (L) 771 3(O)

wasted resources (L) 696 3(O)

corruption (L) 682 1(O)

materialistic (L) 671 1(I)

uncertainty about the future (L)

651 1(I)

conflict/ aggression (L)

560 2(R)

crime/ violence (L) 509 1(R)

unemployment (L) 504 1(O)

short-term focus (L) 444 1(O)


unemployment (L) 431 1(O)

uncertainty about the future (L)

416 1(I)

educational opportunities

405 3(O)

wasted resources (L) 371 3(O)

short-term focus (L) 353 1(O)

freedom of speech 335 4(O)

peace 324 7(S)

envy (L) 298 2(I)

democratic process 293 4(R)

quality of life 186 6(I)

democratic process 185 4(R)

secrecy of the banks (L)

129 2(O)

decentralisation 122 4(O)

materialistic (L) 116 1(I)

economic stability 110 1(I)

prosperity 103 1(I)

freedom of speech 102 4(O)

tradition (L) 92 2(O)

neutrality 91 4(S)

What Singapore Residents Said Would Define their Desired

Singapore Society




Level

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IROS (P)=1-1-4-4 IROS (L)=0-0-0-0

1%

1%

1%

15%

9%

4%

26%

18%

9%

16%

0% 20% 40% 60%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Singapore Residents

affordable housing 875 1(O)

caring for the elderly 744 4(S)

effective healthcare 650 1(O)

caring for the disadvantaged 624 4(S)

compassion 590 7(R)

concern for future generations 579 7(S)

quality of life 549 6(I)

equal opportunities 538 4(O)

social responsibility 517 4(S)

employment opportunities 502 1(O)


What Singapore Residents Said Would Define their Desired

Singapore Society

• Caring for the elderly • Caring for the disadvantaged • Compassion • Social responsibility

1. Who’s responsibility is it?

2. What’s the role of individuals?

• Equal opportunities • Employment opportunities • Concern for future generations

3. How does meritocracy feature in light of this?

• Affordable housing • Effective healthcare • Quality of life

4. To what extent are we meeting basic healthcare and housing needs?

5. How do we define quality of life?


How Singapore Residents View the Current and Desired

Singapore Society Implications

• Are the dimensions identified in this survey comprehensive? What other important dimensions can be examined?

• Who (e.g., government, business, community leaders and organisations, residents/employees) should lead the change to move the current state of affairs to the desired state of affairs? Is the desired state of affairs all that desirable?

• What concrete steps can we take to effect positive change?

• What obstacles could hinder positive change?


02 (ii) How Singapore Residents View the

Current and Desired Singapore

Workplace



Private Sector Level

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IRS (P)=7-3-0 IRS (L)=0-0-0




Orange = Unique values

Public Sector Level

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IRS (P)=8-2-0 IRS (L)=0-0-0

family 374 2(R)

friendship 305 2(R)

health 249 1(I)

happiness 244 5(I)




219 6(I)

positive attitude 218 5(I)

accountability 211 4(R)

honesty 207 5(I)

family 122 2(R)

happiness 100 5(I)


friendship 93 2(R)


88 6(I)


humour/ fun 80 5(I)

health 79 1(I)

honesty 71 5(I)

commitment 65 5(I)

How Singapore Residents Perceive their Current Workplace

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IROS (P)=0-2-6-0 IROS (L)=0-0-2-0

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IROS (P)=0-2-6-0 IROS (L)=0-0-2-0

Percentage of Potentially Limiting Values and Behaviours = 21%

customer satisfaction 298 2(O)

cost reduction (L) 267 1(O)

teamwork 247 4(R)

brand image 227 3(O)

long hours (L) 221 3(O)

results orientation 204 3(O)

profit 188 1(O)

continuous improvement 182 4(O)


continuous learning 159 4(O)

teamwork 86 4(R)


customer satisfaction 77 2(O)

hierarchy (L) 77 3(O)




long hours (L) 69 3(O)

results orientation 66 3(O)

achievement 58 3(I)

Percentage of Potentially Limiting Values and Behaviours = 21%





Private Sector Level Public Sector Level

What Singapore Residents said Would Define their Desired

Workplace

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IROS (P)=0-4-6-0 IROS (L)=0-0-0-0

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IROS (P)=0-5-5-0 IROS (L)=0-0-0-0





employee recognition 300 2(R)

balance (home/work) 298 4(O)

teamwork 291 4(R)

employee fulfilment 211 6(O)

leadership development 195 6(O)



employee health 180 1(O)

respect 180 2(R)

fairness 179 5(R)

balance (home/work) 135 4(O)

teamwork 112 4(R)

employee recognition 100 2(R)



respect 76 2(R)

coaching/ mentoring 75 6(R)

staff engagement 75 5(O)

employee fulfillment 69 6(O)

fairness 65 5(R)

Private Sector Level Public Sector Level

What Singapore Residents said Would Define their Desired

Workplace

• Balance (home / work) • Employee health – Private sector

1. cares for our well-being and allows time for personal pursuits?

• Continuous improvement • Continuous learning • Coaching / mentoring – Public

sector • Leadership development –

Private sector

3. commits to development and improvement?

4. our leaders are motivated and enabled to guide and coach us?

• Teamwork • Fairness

5. encourages the spirit of working together across all levels, while being impartial to one another.

• Employee recognition • Employee fulfilment • Respect • Staff engagement – Public sector

2. provides a sense of achievement; seeks and values our views / contribution?

How do we create a workplace which …


From vision to results

Vincent Ho, Director, aAdvantage Consulting Email: [email protected]

Tel: 6853 2658

For all queries on the survey and results, please contact:




National values-assessment-presentation-2012

Business

Transcript of National values-assessment-presentation-2012