What AIB Got Wrong About Hybrid Work
And what it means for anyone serious about talent, performance and strategy
AIB’s decision to pull staff back into the office four days a week has stirred up more than a bit of frustration. The Financial Services Union called it “regressive and shortsighted”. Staff morale has taken a hit. And people across the sector are paying close attention.
The instinct behind this kind of decision isn’t new. It reflects a mindset that sees office presence as proof of productivity. But we’ve had plenty of time, data and lived experience to challenge that.
For any organisation still hesitating around hybrid work, this is a moment worth thinking through properly.
Evidence, not opinion
The House of Lords’ Industry and Regulators Committee published a detailed report earlier this year on the impact of hybrid working. The takeaway? Done properly, hybrid working doesn’t just maintain business performance. It often improves it.
Firms who approach it seriously report stronger staff retention, higher satisfaction and no drop in output. In some cases, productivity improves. The companies leaning in to flexible models are pulling ahead. The ones defaulting to rigid office-first rules are drifting behind.
And yet, the report also noted that many of the most inflexible decisions come from senior leaders who simply prefer the office. That’s not strategy. That’s comfort.
What AIB’s decision signals
At its core, this is not about remote work. It’s about trust.
AIB’s policy tells staff they are trusted only when visible. That they’re expected to reorganise their week around being seen, not being effective. It tells high-performing employees who value autonomy that those preferences are secondary.
It is, in short, a statement of culture. And not a particularly modern one.
The business risk here goes beyond a few angry headlines. A rigid stance like this puts pressure on recruitment, on retention, and on diversity. It filters out people with other commitments. It pushes talent away from the regions. It reinforces hierarchy, rather than performance.
The missed opportunity
This isn’t just a bad comms move. It’s a structural misstep.
Rather than investing in a system that supports flexibility with clarity, AIB has chosen a rule that adds friction. It increases commutes, adds cost, and strips out choice. For a bank, those are strange risks to take.
There’s a bigger strategic question to ask here: what sort of infrastructure do you want your people working in?
If your team can do focused work at home, should they be pulled into the office anyway? If they’re meeting clients in different cities, should the office be the default? If they’re collaborating once a week in person, where should that happen?
The answers don’t need to be complicated. But they do need to be designed with care.
Avoiding the same traps:
- Set policy with purpose
Don’t leave flexibility to chance. Or worse, to preference. A clear, well-structured hybrid model removes ambiguity and builds trust. - Don’t mistake flexibility for chaos
It is entirely possible to offer location choice while keeping control. GoWorkly gives companies the tools to manage bookings, budgets and visibility without the admin tangle. - Keep an eye on the wider market
Your competitors are making decisions about hybrid strategy too. The ones getting it right will quietly become more attractive to the very people you want to hire. - Ask your teams, and mean it
The House of Lords report noted that the best outcomes came from organisations that built hybrid policies with input from their people. Not performative listening, but actual shaping.
Hybrid working is not about perks. It is not about being trendy. It is about creating the right conditions for performance, trust and talent to thrive.
If you want your workplace to support your strategy, don’t drag people back out of habit. Build something better.