Good Mission, Good People, But Losing Touch With The Ground
Pros
Pay is still relatively competitive compared to many roles in the market. There are also many genuinely good colleagues here. Over the years, I’ve met people who care deeply about Singapore and our reserves, and who are willing to teach, mentor and help others succeed without playing politics. These people are the reason many of us have stayed longer than we otherwise would have. The new Director of Technology also appears to bring relevant experience and credibility. Hopefully he will be given the support and environment needed to strengthen the technology function.
Cons
This year has been difficult for many employees. Due to investment performance, bonuses have taken a significant hit. The unfortunate reality is that many teams are doing more work, taking on more responsibilities, but bringing home less. It is hard not to feel demoralised. Within infrastructure, the culture today feels very different from what it used to be. In my opinion, there is now a growing culture of fear and mistrust. People are increasingly careful about what they say and who they say it to. Honest feedback does not seem to be welcomed in the same way as before. Some of the long-serving staff who were respected for speaking up and raising concerns no longer seem valued. Many have left or are leaving. Whether intentional or not, the message received by many employees is that keeping your head down is safer than challenging decisions. Meritocracy also feels weaker than before. It often feels like opportunities are reserved for those within certain circles rather than those producing the strongest outcomes. Perception matters, and unfortunately this perception is becoming increasingly common. There also appears to be a disconnect between leadership and what teams are experiencing on the ground. Decisions are made, commitments are given, and more work gets added, but there does not seem to be sufficient consideration of capacity or sustainability. The result is predictable: long hours, increasing burnout and deteriorating morale. To be frank, however, my biggest disappointment has been HR’s support for TG. Based on my experience, Tech HR has become largely invisible to the average TG staff. Many of us would struggle to name our HR partners, let alone feel comfortable approaching them with concerns. What is particularly frustrating is that recurring employee feedback does not appear to result in meaningful engagement. At town halls, management may express disappointment about Glassdoor reviews, but many employees are left wondering whether anyone is genuinely interested in understanding why these reviews keep appearing week after week. The previous Tech HR team seemed much more present. They walked the ground, knew the people, understood team dynamics and built relationships. Today, Tech HR feels distant. The perception among many staff is that HR mainly exists to support management decisions rather than represent the interests of employees as well. They describe themselves as business partners, but many staff only see the “business” part of that partnership. Several reorganisations over the past few years have created confusion, uncertainty and disruption within TG. From an employee perspective, HR appears to have supported these exercises without adequately challenging whether they were properly thought through or whether employees were ready for the consequences. What makes this more difficult to understand is that colleagues in investment teams often describe a very different HR experience. Their HR partners appear more engaged, more accessible and more involved with the people they support. This naturally raises an uncomfortable question: does TG simply receive a lower standard of HR support? Whether that is true or not, many employees certainly feel that way. The end result is that there is very little trust between TG staff and Tech HR. Most people I know would not consider approaching HR unless absolutely necessary. That should concern HR leadership.