2018 Singapore National Values Assessment

Copyright © aAdvantage Consulting 2018. All Intellectual Property Reserved.
1
How we view Singapore society and the workplace as
these are today, and what we want them to be
30th July, 2018

2
Terms of Use
All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and relating to this document or any copies thereof including but
not limited to copyright, logos, names, trademarks, service marks, design, text, images, concepts and themes are owned by
aAdvantage Consulting Group Pte Ltd (“aAdvantage Consulting”) and/or Barrett Values Centre (“BVC”). Any reproduction,
transmission, publication, performance, broadcast, alteration, hyperlink, creation of derivative works or other use in whole or in
part in any manner without the prior written consent of aAdvantage Consulting is strictly prohibited. The content contained
within this document may be referenced to only if credit is attributed to aAdvantage Consulting, provided that the information
cited is accurately represented and does not in any way contradict the information provided in this document.
You shall not use aAdvantage’s name, trademarks, service marks, logos, trade names and/or branding without aAdvantage’s
prior written consent.
This document contains general information only. aAdvantage Consulting are not, by means of this document, rendering any
professional advice or services. This document is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used
as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may
affect your business, you should consult a professional advisor. Whilst every care has been taken in compiling this document,
aAdvantage Consulting makes no representations or warranty (expressed or implied) about the accuracy, suitability, reliability or
completeness of the information for any purpose. aAdvantage Consulting or its employees accept no liability to any party for
any loss, damage or costs howsoever arising, whether directly or indirectly from any action or decision taken (or not taken) as a
result of any person relying on or otherwise using this document or arising from any omission from it.

aAdvantage Consulting: From Vision to Results
Partnering
clients in achieving
impactful implementation and
seamless transformation for
sustainable growth.

4
Objectives of the Study
• Obtain preliminary insights into what matters to Singapore Citizens.
• Generate meaningful dialogue about the society and workplace environment
that Singapore Citizens desire.
Our Purpose

5www.aadvantage-consulting.com
01
Introduction

6
Respondents were asked the following three questions. For each question,
respondents were required to pick exactly 10 values and behaviours from a list
that:
4. Best reflect your workplace today
5. Best reflect your desired workplace
1. Best reflect who you are
2. Best reflect Singapore’s society today
3. Best reflect the desired Singapore society
Personal
Societal
Organisational
Assessment Questions
Introduction

7
• 2,000 Singapore Citizens were interviewed.
• Survey period: March to May 2018.
• Stratified quota sampling across Ethnicity, Education Qualifications, Age,
Housing Types across constituencies.
• Data collection through Face-to-Face Interviews and Online Survey
(particularly for private households).
NB: Of the 2,000 respondents, 956 employed Singapore Citizens also responded to our
questions on their current and desired workplace in Singapore. This however is not based on
Stratified Quota Sampling.
Methodology
Introduction

8
Maslow’s Needs to Barrett’s Consciousness
Know and
Understand
Physiological
Safety
Love & Belonging
Self-esteemAbraham
Maslow
Know and
Understand
Needs Consc iousness
Self-Actualization
Richard Barrett
Introduction

Introduction
The Barrett Seven Levels of Consciousness
Selfless service
Compassion, humility, forgiveness,
caring for humanity
Global sustainability
Human rights, long-term perspective,
peace, focus on future generations
Making a positive difference in the
world
Empathy, alliances, cooperation,
intuition, mentoring
Strategic alliances and regional
partnerships
environmental awareness, care for
disadvantaged, sustainability
Finding meaning in existence
Integrity, honesty, authenticity, passion,
enthusiasm, creativity
Strong cohesive culture
Fairness, transparency, trust, shared
vision and values, citizen dialogue
Letting go of fears.
Adaptability, life long learning,
continuous renewal
Democratic processes and
continuous renewal
Freedom, equality, empowerment,
accountability, adaptability
Feeling a sense of self-worth
Fear: I am not enough.
power, authority or status seeking
Institutional effectiveness
Bureaucracy, central control, elitism,
complacency, and apathy.
Feeling protected and loved
Fear: I am not loved enough.
jealousy, blame, and discrimination
Sense of belonging & social
stability
Inequality, discrimination, intolerance,
hatred, and loneliness/isolation.
Satisfying physiological and
survival needs
Fear: I do not have enough.
control, domination, demanding, and
impatience
Economic stability and citizen
security
Corruption, violence, poverty,
environmental pollution, and greed.
SelfinterestCommonGood
Personal National

10
Completed National / Regional Values Assessments
Introduction*
Denmark
2008
Latvia
2007
Sweden
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
2013, 2014, 2016, 2017,
2018
Iceland
2008, 2010, 2014
Belgium
2010, 2014
UK
2012
Finland
2010, 2011
Switzerland
2011
France
2012, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017
USA
2009, 2010, 2011
Australia
2009, 2016
Canada
2009
South Africa
2011**
Bhutan
2007
Brazil
2010, 2017
Nigeria
2012
Argentina
2001**
Singapore
2012, 2015, 2018
United Arab Emirates
2012
South America
North America
Africa
Asia
Oceania
Europe
Venezuela
2010 **
Trinidad & Tobago
2012
** Data collected by random public sample
Italy
2012
Hungary
2012 **
Slovakia
2017
Turkey
2011, 2017
Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia 2016, 2017
Serbia
T.B.D.

02
Personal Values and How Singapore
Citizens View the Current and Desired
Singapore Society (2018)

What Singapore Citizens Consider are the Values and
Behaviours that Best Describe Themselves (2018)
% of total votes across 7 levels
2%
1%
1%
7%
18%
10%
19%
24%
10%
8%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
# Value/Behaviour* Level
1 Family 2(R)
2 Health 1(I)
3 Caring 2(R)
4 Friendship 2(R)
5 Responsibility 4(I)
6 Honesty 5(I)
7 Happiness 5(I)
8 Compassion 7(R)
9 Balance (home/work) 4(I)
10 Humour/ fun 5(I)
Level Singapore Citizens
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
IRS (P)=6-4-0
• L5: Authentic to
one’s needs and
aspirations
• L4: Willingness to
let go of personal
fears and
concerns
• L2: Value personal
relationships and
connections
* Top 10 arranged in order of frequency of votes cast in descending order

% of Potentially Limiting Values
and Behaviours = 41%
# Value/Behaviour Level
1 Kiasu (L) 1(I)
2 Complaining (L) 2(R)
3 Competitiveness (L) 3(R)
4 Materialistic (L) 1(I)
5 Educational opportunities 3(O)
6 Blame (L) 2(R)
7 Kiasi (L) 1(I)
8 Self-centredness (L) 3(I)
9 Care for the elderly 4(S)
10 Effective healthcare 1(O)
% of total votes across 7 levels
16%
12%
13%
9%
5%
9%
15%
6%
7%
8%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Level Singapore Citizens
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
IROS (P)=0-0-2-1 IROS (L)=4-3-0-0
How Singapore Citizens Perceive the Singapore Society as it is
Today (2018)
* Top 10 arranged in order of frequency of votes cast in descending order
• Systems in place to
support health, self-
development and well-
being of the elderly
• Places strong focus on
the Self
(64% votes: levels 1-3)
o Unwillingness to try
due to fear of losing
out, desire for
possessions and
need to stay ahead
of others
o Environment where
people attribute
problems and
imperfections to
others

Cultural Entropy for Singapore (2018)
This table depicts the survey participants’ total votes for Current Culture potentially limiting values by level.
Potentially limiting values reflect the degree of disorder within a system and are found only at levels 1, 2 and 3.
Level Potentially Limiting Values (Votes) Cultural Entropy %
3
Competitiveness (595)
Self-centredness (479)
Deteriorating values (431)
Complacency (423)
Elitism (324)
Wasted resources (237)
Bureaucracy (158)
13% of total votes
2
Complaining (866)
Blame (499)
Discrimination (334)
Distrust (273)
Non-transparency (256)
Class division (211)
12% of total votes
1
Kiasu (1022)
Materialistic (542)
Kiasi (482)
Uncertainty about the future (364)
Control (231)
Unemployment (192)
Short-term Focus (185)
Crime/ Violence (132)
Corruption (125)
16% of total votes
Total 8,361 out of 20,000 votes 41% of total votes
Current
National
Entropy:
41%

Percentage of “Potentially Limiting Values and Behaviours”
by Countries
82%
76%
75%
73%
72%
62%
61%
61%
59%
57%
54%
52%
51%
49%
44%
41%
37%
41%
39%
39%
32%
26%
21%
12%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
HUNGARY (2012)
SLOVAKIA (2012)
TRINIDAD&TOBAGO (2012)
ITALY (2012)
VENEZUELA (2009)
SOUTH AFRICA (2011)
FRANCE (2015)
ICELAND (2014)
UNITED KINGDOM (2012)
NIGERIA (2012)
LATVIA (2007)
UNITED STATES (2011)
BRAZIL (2010)
FINLAND (2011)
SWEDEN (2018)
SINGAPORE (2012)
SINGAPORE (2015)
SINGAPORE (2018)
AUSTRALIA (2016)
BELGIUM (2014)
CANADA (2010)
SWITZERLAND (2011)
DENMARK (2008)
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (2012)
BHUTAN (2008)
Reference: National Values Assessment Resource Guide (2016), Barretts Values Centre

16
Entropy 2015 = 37%Entropy 2012 = 41%
#
Value/Behaviour
(2012)
Value/Behaviour
(2015)
Value/Behaviour
(2018)
1 Kiasu1 (L) Kiasu1 (L) Kiasu1 (L)
2 Competitive (L) Competitive (L) Complaining (L)
3 Self-centred (L) Materialistic(l) Competitiveness (L)
4 Material needs Self-centered(l)
Materialistic (L)
5 Kiasi2 (L) Kiasi2 (L) Educational opportunities
6 Deteriorating values (L) Blame (L) Blame (L)
7 Elitism (L) Security Kiasi2 (L)
8 Blame (L) Education opportunities Self-centredness (L)
9
Uncertainty about the
future (L)
Effective healthcare Care for the elderly
10 Security Peace Effective healthcare
Entropy 2018 = 41%
Level Current Values (CC) 2012 Current Values (CC) 2015 Current Values (CC) 2018
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Current Culture Singapore Society: ‘12, ‘15, ‘18
Blue = Appeared in 2012, 2015 & 2018

# Value/Behaviour Level
1 affordable housing 1(O)
2 care for the elderly 4(S)
3 compassion 7(R)
4 care for the disadvantaged 4(S)
5 effective healthcare 1(O)
6 care for the environment 6(S)
7 dependable public services 3(O)
8 educational opportunities 3(O)
9 concern for future generations 7(S)
10 respect 2(R)
% of total votes across 7 levelsLevel Singapore Citizens
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
IROS (P)=0-2-4-4
2%
1%
1%
12%
9%
9%
23%
17%
11%
15%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
What Singapore Citizens Said Would Define their Desired
Singapore Society (2018) • Top 10 across the
levels indicating
consciousness of
needs /aspirations
at all levels
• Call to let go of
some of our fears
and focus on
common good
(64% votes: levels
4-7)
• At the same time,
to enhance
achievement of
basic needs
• Call for more
respect and
compassion as a
possible response
to societal blame
and complaining

18
Singapore NVA 2018: Value Jumps
A value jump occurs when there are more votes for a value in the Desired Culture than in the Current Culture.
Listed below are the values with the largest increase in votes. The values in bold are represented in the Desired
Culture.
Current Culture Votes Desired Culture Votes Jump
Affordable housing 251 773 522
Compassion 208 656 448
Care for the disadvantaged 243 562 319
Care for the elderly 446 725 279
Respect 124 400 276
Care for the environment 232 503 271
Positive attitude 50 288 238
Transparency 63 284 221
Integrity 92 308 216
Helpfulness 160 372 212
What’s going to promote trust and connections towards transformation?

19
#
Value/Behaviour
(2012)
Value/Behaviour
(2015)
Value/Behaviour
(2018)
1 Affordable housing Affordable housing Affordable housing
2 Caring for the elderly Caring for the elderly Care for the elderly
3 Effective healthcare Effective healthcare Compassion
4
Caring for the
disadvantaged Compassion Care for the
disadvantaged
5 Compassion Quality of life Effective healthcare
6
Concern for future
generations
Caring for the
disadvantaged Care for the environment
7 Quality of life Peace Dependable public
services
8 Equal opportunities Employment opportunities Educational opportunities
9 Social responsibility Caring for environment Concern for future
generations
10
Employment
opportunities
Concern for future
generations Respect
Level Desired Values (DC) 2012 Desired Values (DC) 2015 Desired Values (DC) 2018
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
IROS (P)=1-1-4-4 IROS (P)=1-1-3-5 IROS (P)=0-2-4-4 IROS (L)=0-0-0-0
Desired Culture Singapore Society: ‘12, ‘15, ‘18
Blue = Appeared in 2012, 2015 & 2018

Summary of 2018 NVA Results
Personal Values vs. Societal Current Values vs. Societal Desired Values
Personal Values Societal Current Values Societal Desired Values
1 family 940 2(R) kiasu (L) 1022 1(I) affordable housing 773 1(O)
2 health 597 1(I) complaining (L) 866 2(R) care for the elderly 725 4(S)
3 caring 587 2(R) competitiveness (L) 595 3(R) compassion 656 7(R)
4 friendship 587 2(R) materialistic (L) 542 1(I) care for the disadvantaged 562 4(S)
5 responsibility 585 4(I) educational opportunities 510 3(O) effective healthcare 527 1(O)
6 honesty 466 5(I) blame (L) 499 2(R) care for the environment 503 6(S)
7 happiness 451 5(I) kiasi (L) 482 1(I) dependable public svcs 468 3(O)
8 compassion 448 7(R) self-centredness (L) 479 3(I) educational opportunities 451 3(O)
9 balance (home/work) 393 4(I) care for the elderly 446 4(S) concern for future gen. 450 7(S)
10 humour/ fun 364 5(I) effective healthcare 443 1(O) respect 400 2(R)
(0) Black Underline = PV & CC
(0) Orange = PV, CC & DC
(3) Orange = CC & DC
(1) Blue = PV & DC
P = Positive
L = Potentially Limiting (white circle)
I = Individual
R = Relationship
O = Organisational
S = Societal
Singapore Citizens (n=2,000)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
IRS (P)=6-4-0 IRS (L)=0-0-0 IROS (P)=0-0-2-1 IROS (L)=4-3-0-0 IROS (P)=0-2-4-4 IROS (L)=0-0-0-0
Cultural Entropy: 41%

21
1. How do we manage the priorities between more basic needs like effective
healthcare and affordable housing vis-à-vis higher societal aspirations of
compassion and care for the less privileged?
3. What roles and responsibilities can the community of stakeholders play to effect
the desired change?
Some Parting Thoughts
2. What does it take for us to move from “blaming/complaining” to taking
personal accountability of what’s desired in our society?

03
Country Comparison

23
National Assessment Sweden Overall Group (1000)
bureaucracy (L) 407 3(O)
uncertainty about the future (L) 402 1(I)
crime/ violence (L) 378 1(R)
blame (L) 360 2(R)
wasted resources (L) 341 3(O)
freedom of speech 334 4(O)
materialistic (L) 306 1(I)
short-term focus (L) 300 1(O)
educational opportunities 270 3(O)
diversity 259 4(R)
peace 259 7(S)
financial stability 503 1(I)
employment opportunities 452 1(O)
concern for future generations 412 7(S)
effective healthcare 349 1(O)
equality 307 4(R)
nature conservancy 305 6(S)
law enforcement 279 3(O)
democratic process 270 4(R)
environmental awareness 261 6(S)
peace 261 7(S)
Black Underline = PV & CC
Orange = PV, CC & DC
Orange = CC & DC
Blue = PV & DC
P = Positive
I = Individual
R = Relationship
O = Organisational
S = Societal
family 455 2(R)
responsibility 443 4(I)
humour/ fun 432 5(I)
honesty 337 5(I)
accountability 302 4(R)
financial stability 295 1(I)
compassion 267 7(R)
balance (home/work) 248 4(I)
positive attitude 246 5(I)
health 227 1(I)
Level Personal Values (PV) Current Culture Values (CC) Desired Culture Values (DC)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Cultural Entropy:
Current Culture
44%

Level 2013(1001) 2014 (1001) 2018 (1000)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
IROS (P)=0-0-2-1 IROS (L)=2-1-4-0 IROS (P)=0-0-2-1 IROS (L)=2-2-3-0 IROS (P)=0-1-2-1 IROS (L)=2-2-3-0
Sweden National Assessments (Current Culture)
unemployment (L) 599 1(O)
uncertainty about the
future (L)
438 1(I)
blame (L) 334 2(R)
peace 332 7(S)
educational opportunities 279 3(O)
Matches
6
Cultural
Entropy:
2013: 47%
2014: 43%
2018: 44%
future (L)
402 1(I)
crime/ violence (L) 378 1(R)
blame (L) 360 2(R)
educational
opportunities
270 3(O)
diversity 259 4(R)
peace 259 7(S)
unemployment (L) 507 1(O)
future (L)
378 1(I)
peace 331 7(S)
blame (L) 297 2(R)
educational
opportunities
268 3(O)
Orange = Past and Present P = Positive I = Individual O = Organisational
L = Potentially Limiting R = Relationship S = Societal
Legend

25
Sweden
Municipal-level Dialogues
https://www.valuescentre.com/resources/articles
“With Focus on Values - Measurement and Transformation in Swedish Municipalities”

26
Australia (2016)
• An organisation called the Australian Futures Project ran the NVA in 2016.
• They then created a nationwide competition called "My Big Idea" based on
the top 10 desired culture values.
• What practical ideas did Australian citizens have to bring the desired culture
values to life in society. This was supported with TV and media coverage and
significant corporate sponsorship https://youtu.be/rqzyaK6WZRE

04
How Singapore Citizens View the
Current and Desired Singapore
Workplace

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.
CommonGoodSelfinterest
Introduction
The Barrett Seven Levels of Organisational Consciousness

Summary of 2018 CVA Results
Personal Values vs. Workplace Current vs. Workplace Desired
Personal Values Workplace Current Values Workplace Desired Values
1 Family 415 2(R) Teamwork 284 4(R) Employee recognition 360 2(R)
2 Responsibility 301 4(I) Continuous improvement 225 4(O) Balance (home/work) 321 4(O)
3 Balance (home/work) 262 4(I) Continuous learning 217 4(O) Teamwork 298 4(R)
4 Friendship 253 2(R) Cost reduction (L) 214 1(O) Continuous improvement 255 4(O)
5 Health 250 1(I) Customer satisfaction 212 2(O) Continuous learning 255 4(O)
6 Caring 234 2(R) Results orientation 203 3(O) Employee engagement 255 5(O)
7 Compassion 206 7(R) Achievement 192 3(I) Coaching/ mentoring 220 6(R)
8 Honesty 197 5(I) Balance (home/work) 190 4(O) Employee health 209 1(O)
9 Positive attitude 191 5(I) Long hours (L) 190 3(O) Open communication 205 2(R)
10 Happiness 190 5(I) Information sharing 174 4(O) Employee fulfilment 204 6(O)
(0) Black Underline = PV & CC
(1) Orange = PV, CC & DC
(3) Orange = CC & DC
(0) Blue = PV & DC
P = Positive
I = Individual
R = Relationship
O = Organisational
S = Societal
Singapore Employed Citizens (n=956)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Cultural Entropy: 19%
Entropy
2018 = 19%

30
Entropy Impact
0-10% Prime: Healthy Functioning
11-20% Minor Issues: Requiring cultural and/or structural adjustment
21-30% Significant Issues: Requiring cultural and structural transformation, and leadership
coaching
31-40% Serious Issues: Requiring cultural and structural transformation, leadership
mentoring/coaching, and leadership development
41%+ Critical Issues: Requiring cultural and structural transformation, selective changes
in leadership, leadership mentoring/coaching and leadership development
Organisational Cultural Entropy Represents The Degree Of
Dysfunction In A Culture

31
1.As the economy restructures, what’s the correct balance in terms of excellence in execution,
financial results and innovating for the future?
3. What can organisation leaders do to create a conducive workplace environment to meet the
personal aspirations and motivations of your employees? Are they willing to invest?
2. What’s currently inhibiting organisations in terms of leadership and culture? What’s being done
to address these?
Some Parting Thoughts

32
From vision to results
Vincent Ho, Director, aAdvantage Consulting
Email: vincent.ho@aadvantage-consulting.com
Tel: 6853 2658
For all queries on the survey and results, please contact:

2018 Singapore National Values Assessment

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to 2018 Singapore National Values Assessment

Similar to 2018 Singapore National Values Assessment (20)

More from aAdvantage Consulting Group Pte Ltd

More from aAdvantage Consulting Group Pte Ltd (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2018 Singapore National Values Assessment