I’ve sat across from enough retrenched PMETs over the years that I can read a restructuring announcement and know, within about thirty seconds, whether the company thought about the human beings involved or just the org chart.
So when GovTech announced on 15 July that it was letting go of 93 officers, the first phase of a plan that will reshape 7 to 9 per cent of its workforce over the next two years, that was the first thing I went looking for.
My opinion? GovTech thought about the human beings….Mostly.
I want to give credit where it’s due, because we spend a lot of time in this industry talking about who got it wrong, and GovTech kinda got a lot right… But there’s a gap in it that I see companies fall into again and again, and it’s the part that costs them the most… leaving the organisation in a weaker position for the longer term.
First, What They Did Right
1. They gave a real reason. Chairman Chng Kai Fong told staff the agency is moving from managing vendors to building products in-house, an honest structural reason he resisted the temptation to dress up…and unlike many other company leaders, he did not blame the ‘faceless’ AI-monster as the culprit.
2. They didn’t reach for the axe first. 102 officers were kept in their roles, 110 were retrained through apprenticeships, and they’re still hiring, which tells you cuts were the last lever, not the first… and moving forward, they will still focus on retraining and redeployment.
3. They paid their severance fairly, and then some. The package went beyond the TAMEM guidelines, which is exactly the signal you want to send when people are watching how you treat those you let go. We think they did well in this respect and didn’t stinge on their affected colleagues.
4. They protected the leavers’ dignity. Chng said out loud that the people leaving were not underperformers, and honestly, that one sentence does more for a 48-year-old project manager’s next job search than any reference letter ever will.
5. They brought in help early. The union was consulted from the start and e2i career coaches were on-site on the day, so nobody walked out with no idea where to turn next.
On the fundamentals of responsible retrenchment, honesty, dignity, a fair package, alternatives explored before cuts, this was a solid, well-run exercise.
So Where’s The Gap?
1. The people at the top of the exit need a different kind of help.
The e2i career support is good, and for the broad base of affected staff, that on-the-ground, government-backed help is exactly what you want, deployed fast and free.
But a Director in his early fifties who has spent years inside one organisation is not job-hunting in the same market as everyone else. His market is smaller, more political, more relationship-driven, and far less forgiving. He doesn’t need a career fair… he needs someone sitting with him one-to-one, week after week, mapping which doors to knock on, rebuilding a personal brand that needs refreshing, and rehearsing the story he tells about why he left.
I’ve watched senior leavers stall for over a year, not because they lacked ability, but because nobody helped them navigate a market that works completely differently at the top.
The best exit programmes match the level of care to the level of the role and even though a career-fair-and-portal model works for a junior officer, specialised private outplacement for the leadership tier is more appropriate. Same respect, different depth.
2. And then there’s the part almost everyone forgets… The people who stayed.
Here’s what worries me most about the GovTech announcement. It was, understandably, all about the leavers. The package, the pathways, the redeployment…all necessary, and right.
But read the framing again: 7 to 9 per cent (about 300 staff) over two years, in three phases..that’s a lot of stayers!
Now put yourself in the chair of someone who kept their job on 15 July. You didn’t get the call this round. But there are two more phases coming, and nobody has told you whether your name is on a list for next year. So you smile in the town hall… and you update your CV that night.
That’s the real cost of a rolling retrenchment… Not just about the money paid to the people who left, which is finite and one-off, but the erosion of trust among the people who remain, which compounds every single month the uncertainty drags on. And the ones most able to jump ship are usually your best people, because they have the most options.
The leavers get a package. The stayers get a shrug and a “let’s get back to work.” That’s the imbalance I see over and over.
It doesn’t take much to fix, but it takes intent.
1. Debrief the teams after each round instead of pretending nothing happened. Open an anonymous channel so people can say what they’d never say to your face. Redraw roles and workloads honestly… because the leaver’s work didn’t vanish, it landed on someone else.
2. Train managers and equip them with the skills to rebuild trust in the weeks after, not just for delivering bad news on the day. And tell the survivors, in plain language, what this restructuring means for their own path forward.
GovTech may well be doing some of this behind closed doors. I hope they are. But if the public story is entirely about the people leaving and says nothing about the people staying, that tells you where the attention went.
Responsible Retrenchment Doesn’t End When The Leavers Are Exited
GovTech got the hard, visible part right. The real test comes over the next two years, in whether the people who stayed still believe this is a place worth staying for.
If you’re an HR or business leader planning a restructuring, I’ll leave you with the question I ask every client before they announce: you’ve planned every detail for the people walking out… what exactly is the plan for the ones still sitting at their desks on Monday morning?
Want a free copy of our latest book, “Responsible Retrenchment (2nd Edition)”? Join us for our book launch on the 30th of July 2026! Click here to register.
