Woman claims company pressured staff into faking feedback for anonymous survey
SINGAPORE: A woman has raised concerns about whether some workplaces in Singapore are indirectly pressuring employees to give only positive feedback, even during so-called 'anonymous' surveys.
On Wednesday (May 21), she shared her experience on the r/askSingapore forum.
According to her post, staff were asked to participate in an organisation-wide feedback survey, which was promoted as being anonymous. Initially, she thought it was a genuine effort by management to hear employees' voices.
However, several weeks after the survey was completed, the head of her unit told the team that their department's director had been singled out for receiving the most negative feedback across the organisation. Following that, staff were instructed to redo the survey.
This time, although management still claimed it was anonymous, the woman said the atmosphere had already shifted—many felt like their responses were being tracked. Then came another surprise: they were told to complete the survey a third time, but now with their full names written clearly on the form.
'We had to redo it yet again, but with our names clearly written. The excuse, if I remember it correctly, was that if anyone was unhappy about it, then they should talk it out.'
Understandably, the woman shared that no one felt comfortable being honest anymore. She admitted that she, along with her colleagues, ended up giving overly positive responses just to avoid being singled out or seen as a troublemaker.
Curious if this was normal in other companies, she asked the community, 'Does your workplace indirectly force you to feedback nice things?' 'If you give bad news, you will be fired.'
Surprisingly, many Singaporean Redditors jumped into the conversation to share that they had gone through similar experiences at their own workplaces. While their companies often emphasised the importance of honest and constructive feedback, several users felt there was always a subtle pressure to only say positive things, especially when it came to reviewing higher-ups. See also A bootstrapped startup's guide to hiring a digital marketing pro
One Redditor commented, 'All corporate feedback is the same, whether it is in SG or overseas. It's only for show. If you disagree with the ExCO leadership and direction, please look for another company that is more aligned with your values. It's wayang just to say they are a progressive and transparent company. PS, they also know who the troublemakers are, who constantly question their direction. Good luck, slaves.'
Another shared a more extreme example: 'We were locked in a room and forced to admit who gave the director a below-average review. Everyone knows these anonymous feedback forms are IQ tests.'
A third simply said, 'If you give bad news, you will be fired.'
A fourth added, 'The rice bowl is only iron when you polish your boss's one till it's shiny and rustproof.'
In other news, a desk-bound employee took to social media to share her confusion and frustration after facing backlash from upper management for taking leave on a Friday and travelling over the weekend, despite not being officially scheduled to work. See also M17 Entertainment raises US$25M for R&D and more
In her detailed post on a local forum, the employee explained that she holds a standard 9-to-5 weekday job that does not involve shift work or regular weekend duties. However, due to the nature of the role, the team often works a few hours during the final weekend of each month to meet deadlines.
Read more: Employee gets 'heat from the higher management' for travelling on her weekend day off
Featured image by Depositphotos (for illustration purposes only)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Independent Singapore
5 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
‘Make space for Singaporeans to dream': Business struggles spark debate featuring Calvin Cheng over rent, manpower, and the future of local business
SINGAPORE: A recent Facebook post by businessman and former Nominated Member of Parliament Calvin Cheng has stirred heated conversation online, after he suggested that rising rents are not the primary cause of Singapore's F&B crisis—and that the government should resist interfering in the free market, especially by imposing rental controls or mandating support for local entrepreneurs. Cheng didn't shy away from admitting that the closures have been heartbreaking—familiar neighbourhood hangouts, late-night bars where friends gathered, even family-run cafes that felt like home, have all folded one after another. Yet he urged us to pause before pointing fingers at landlords. 'Most mall spaces are still taken,' he reminded readers, suggesting that behind every lease negotiation is a landlord weighing risks—sometimes betting on higher rents only to discover too late that demand has shifted. In his view, it's not a matter of landlords callously letting spaces sit empty; it's a delicate, often agonising decision that can leave both tenant and landlord worse off if the timing or market dynamics don't line up. 'It is simplistic to just blame rentals,' he wrote. 'Most of the time, landlords also take a gamble during renewal… If they make the wrong decision, they may end up with a lower rent.' Cheng also claimed that many local F&B entrepreneurs overestimate their financial capacity and falter due to inexperience, rather than being unfairly priced out. Manpower shortages and government policy While defending the market's self-regulation on rents, Cheng was more critical of the government's stance on manpower quotas, especially in the service sector. He asserted that tight restrictions on hiring foreign workers could have led to increased labour costs and service inefficiencies. See also Stories you might've missed, June 16 'I am often served by young, inexperienced and/or disinterested local service staff who never see F&B as a long-term career,' he said. 'If the government really wants to do something, they should relax the quotas on foreign manpower.' Cheng concluded that excessive government intervention in the market often leads to unintended consequences: 'When local entrepreneurs shut down, everyone loses their livelihoods anyway.' Yet Cheng's criticism of young local workers in the F&B sector has struck a raw nerve among many Singaporeans, especially youth and their families, who see part-time service jobs not as careers, but as lifelines. In a country where the cost of living continues to rise sharply—from transport fares to food prices and education costs—40% of polytechnic and university students take up part-time work at cafés, fast-food chains, or bubble tea outlets simply to make ends meet. For some, it's pocket money. For others, it's helping to pay for tuition fees, rent, or to lighten the financial burden on their families. To many of these young workers, the implication that they are 'disinterested' or 'inexperienced' misses the point. The service roles they hold are rarely career pathways—they're a means of economic and social survival in the city. For every customer served with a weary expression, there may be a backstory of exams, caregiving duties, or savings goals stretched thin by the realities of urban school life. Backlash from entrepreneurs and advocates His remarks were met with swift rebuttals from industry figures and local entrepreneurs, many of whom argue that the state has a responsibility to protect small businesses in the face of mounting structural disadvantages. Credit: Calvin Cheng Facebook Wally Tham, owner of the social impact marketing agency Big Red Button, issued one of the most widely resonant rebuttals. 'If the government doesn't protect small local businesses, and Singapore cannot produce large enterprises, we won't have a local culture of business,' Tham wrote. 'Imagine all restaurants only serving Mala offerings and all services imported from the West.' Tham's emphasis on preserving space for uniquely Singaporean business voices—both literal and symbolic—was echoed by other commenters who see rental costs as more than just an economic issue. Cheng, however, dismissed this framing. 'Business is not a culture. Business is about making money,' he replied. 'Good service is a business proposition… Culture is just a misnomer.'hmm. The emotional economics of leasing In a separate comment, Kina Huang, who identified herself as having three decades of experience working with landlords, shared a more human-centred critique. She called attention to what she described as a growing ruthlessness in commercial leasing practices, even toward long-standing, loyal tenants. Credit: Calvin Cheng Facebook 'If a business has been around for more than 15 years, they must have been doing something right. And if they have to close, something external must have gone terribly wrong,' she said. See also MOM: 3 workplace fatalities in 2020 to date 'Lease renewal should be renamed Lease Increment Exercise,' she concluded her comment. Huang recounted how only one leasing agent she encountered in 30 years showed genuine empathy toward tenants, suggesting that most decisions in the space are coldly transactional. A bigger question: What kind of country do we want? Do we want a country where only the biggest players can afford the rent and survive, or do we want to make sure there's still breathing room for the smaller spots that give our neighbourhoods personality? It's tempting to let free-market forces decide—after all, high-profile brands bring in foreign investments and big leases fuel massive growth. But when a local hawker or startup can't renew their lease because the rent jumps too much, it isn't just a business closing: it's one less place where friends meet for kopi, one less corner of our community. If the sheer cost of business keeps squeezing smaller operators, soon there won't be any local names left on the storefronts—just global logos. The real test is whether we can find a way to let big and small businesses coexist, so that big brands, aspiring and small entrepreneurs feel at home here. That balance can shape what Singapore looks and feels like in the years ahead.
Independent Singapore
14 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
Should I stay in my government job, or should I look for a new one?
SINGAPORE: A young Singaporean sought career advice online, writing that they've been working in a government role for the past three years but now wonder if it's time to move on to the next job. In a post on r/askSingapore on Thursday (June 5), u/chicky-mcnuggys wrote that they're now 26 years old and have been at the job since graduating. 'First ranking was ungraded, second and latest grades were C+. My ex-boss, with whom I had good relations, was pushing for me to get a B and had given me multiple stretch assignments, but someone else instead got the B because she was 'due' for promotion. Before my ex-boss left, she gave me additional assignments to justify a better grade for the next ranking, and I've completed them, with good reviews from Senior Management,' the post author wrote. They added that they hoped to get a rating of B in the next two years, which would qualify them for a promotion. See also How businesses can leverage their perks via skill swapping The problem appears to be their new boss, who seems less than generous with rankings. 'Let's just say that hope is out the window because s/he had no good feedback at all for me,' they wrote. While their supervisor disagrees with the feedback the new boss gave, in the end, what the boss says carries the most weight. This is causing the post author to worry that the next time they could be promoted would be in three or four years, and by then, they will be between 29 and 30 years old. 'Which is quite slow, no?… Is this normal, or should I just look elsewhere?' they asked, adding that they're due for rotation soon, which means they'll need to start again in a new division. 'I feel like I'm putting in 101% effort, but it sucks knowing it goes unacknowledged especially since I had to do way more than I'm expected to (since I was given stretch assignments),' they added, asking for advice as to whether or not they should keep their job, given the current job market. Commenters were sympathetic toward the post author, with many becoming upset on their behalf over someone else being due for promotion getting the 'B' rating instead of the post author. One advised them to manage their expectation about promotions. 'Title promotion can be fast, like with a senior/lead tagged to your current title. Usually comes with a little pay bump. Grade promotion is the one that takes longer. This one got a considerable bump in pay and usually takes three to four years from starting the position…unless you are chosen by heaven.' 'I always say, want to climb fast and high, go private sector to chiong, but also risk getting sacked for no reason. Gov't is slow and steady (unless you're a scholar) but (confirmed) will have a job through hell and back,' opined another. Others reassured her that for their age, their career progression is normal and that they shouldn't worry about it too much. See also Top 10 predictions for China cross-border e-commerce in 2019 'Gov't job good. Think thrice and understand private sector risks. Have a good financial plan for your career before any move,' urged a Reddit user. /TISG Read also: 'Just get your foot in the door,' Singaporeans tell new grad who's worried their starting salary isn't so high
CNA
15 hours ago
- CNA
Asia First - Fri 6 Jun 2025
02:27:55 Min From the opening bell across markets in Southeast Asia and China, to the biggest business interviews and top financial stories, tune in to Asia First to kick-start your business day.
