While Lee Shulin isn't getting cancelled when she remarked how employers prefer to let go Singaporeans over foreign hires because the latter are 'hungrier', it was the trigger for a much needed conversation about the job market and matching talent with needs.
A lot of the vitriol came from the misunderstanding of what Lee meant by 'hunger', and to be fair, she did not define it either. Possible, she made an off-the-cuff utterance, but it was enough to become the focal point of the larger discussion that was on CNA.
'Not hungry enough' is a triggering phrase. Especially for young job hunters looking for first time employment, they see themselves as being at the bottom of a grand hierarchy, being paid the minimum of wages to do the maximum amount of labour. After all, that's what starting at the bottom means. To suggest that they aren't hungry enough sparks the response: 'I'm already doing so much--what more do you expect me to do? And you're not paying me enough to boot!'
I appreciate the Singaporean work ethic. I see it in the classroom all the time. They will work their butts off on a graded assignment. Full concentration, busy, and most tellingly, silent. But it's an entirely transactional kind of engagement. Non-graded assignments are f-all, minimum effort, distracted and lower quality than they can actually deliver.
What we have here is an employee mindset. Will do whatever you tell them to, but only if it is directly paired with commensurate reward. I suppose it's realistic. Young workers have expenses and if they spend too much time at the office and being paid scraps for the effort, and barely paying off their personal bills, it's hard to think of a future when they'll need to pay for dates, a wedding and support a family later in life.
Thinking this way, Singaporeans are always going to be hungry, always subsisting on not enough. So, when a job recruiter says they're not hungry enough, wow. Cue torches and pitchforks.
But that's not the hunger Lee is talking about. It's not about the work. The employee only does what they're told, however unreasonable, as long as the reward follows. Finish the job, get paid, go home, enjoy what little work-life balance there is left to enjoy. But ask them what the work meant, and most would not be able to say. The paycheck was the objective, nothing more.
If the money is all they are working for, then they are completely replaceable. Not to mention foreigners, AI already is a hugely viable substitute. Like the Singaporean employee, AI does what it's told, but does it faster, mostly accurately, doesn't complain, and doesn't even need to be paid. And most like the Singaporean employee, AI doesn't really know what it's doing other than executing a set of instructions, and doesn't care what effect or impact the work has on the business as a whole. At the end of the string of instructions is the end of the day and the only difference is that the Singaporean employee has to go home for a few hours before they're ready to start the next day all over again. That's not hunger, that's routine with a trigger-warning.
Perhaps Lee used the wrong vocabulary when she said 'hunger'. I believe she meant 'ownership'. Like you understand the business well enough, and own the job to the extent that you don't require instructions from a supervisor to perform what is needed. You're observant, constantly thinking of the processes that keep the business flowing, and you're already there where things have slowed down before a bottleneck occurs. You're constantly thinking of new and better ways to keep the flow going. Most importantly, the objective isn't the paycheck, but the person at the end of the line who is delighted with the product or service they received that you, in your own little way, helped to deliver.
Singaporean employees seek work, but start at the wrong end. If the money is the most important thing, then they're prepared to suck it up, get the job done for the paycheck--and complain later over coffee and Reddit. Their work ethic is admirable, but since so many are like that, their employers will be searching for viable replacements at the earliest opportunity.
What's the right end, then? It's fit. To know yourself well enough to develop your own weird and wonderful way rather than blindly follow the crowd. Create a niche for yourself with definable, yet flexible borders so that you can offer more than just 'I'll do whatever you tell me'. Rather, offer a role that will both meet the business objectives by performing your particular set of skills, while simultaneously learning the business by practicing its routines. And care about the end-user. You and the organisation you work for exist only because someone needs you to.
Hunger isn't about personal survival. The hunger is for organisational survival. When you have this hunger, you are no longer a rogue cell easily sloughed off when you've outlived your usefulness. Instead, you've become an integral part of the overall structure. Who knows, mitosis could possibly happen, when you've outgrown the business and are ready to branch out on your own.
