WCRC Analysis
In Ibec's latest Talent Trends release, 61% of surveyed HR leaders say their company does not plan to change its hybrid policies next year. The Irish business organisation published the findings on 21 October, drawing on a survey of 319 HR professionals. Ibec's Talent Trends announcement.
That is an indication of planned policy stability among respondents. It is not proof that their arrangements produce better work, and it should not be treated as a global forecast. It does, however, raise a useful management question: once the attendance rule has settled, how should an employer review the experience it creates?
Start with the work that needs coordination
WCRC recommends beginning with a team task that depends on other people. It might be a client handover, a product review or a decision that requires several functions. The employer should establish where the task stalls and what information or interaction would help it move.
That inquiry can reveal whether people need to be together, whether the right people can be available at the same time, or whether a clearer written handover would solve the problem. The answer will depend on the task. Counting office days alone cannot supply it.
A review should also make the purpose of shared time explicit. If an office day is intended for mentoring, the people expected to provide that mentoring need space in their schedules. An attendance requirement without a corresponding plan leaves employees to discover whether the trip was useful after they arrive.
Assess delivery without rewarding visibility by default
Any evaluation needs a defined outcome. A sales-support team might examine the time taken to resolve a customer issue. A project team could assess whether decisions arrive early enough to prevent rework. The measure should reflect something the team can influence and should be interpreted alongside changes in demand or staffing.
WCRC would pair delivery measures with a review of access to support and progression. Who receives useful feedback? Who is offered work that develops their skills? Can a colleague away from the office contribute to the decision before it is effectively settled?
These are questions to investigate, not claims that every hybrid employer has an unfair system. They are worth asking because a formally identical policy can be experienced differently across roles and locations.
A new starter may also need a more deliberate introduction to the organisation than an established employee. The employer can assign time for questions and provide a clear route to help, rather than assume informal learning will occur simply because an office is available.
Stability should allow improvement
Changing the attendance rule is only one way to address a problem. A team could improve a decision record, agree a response window or redesign a recurring meeting while keeping the overall policy stable.
The review should document what is being changed and what would count as improvement. Otherwise, a broad conclusion about hybrid work may be drawn from a local problem that was never properly identified.
Employees should have an opportunity to describe the practical costs on either side of the arrangement. That includes the work disrupted by travel as well as the work made harder by distance. Managers can then make a reasoned trade-off that colleagues can understand, even where preferences differ.
Keep the evidence within its setting
The Ibec survey reflects an Irish HR and employer perspective. It does not measure the experience of every employee or establish that an unchanged policy is a successful one. The observations here concern roles where some remote work is feasible; they should not be imposed as a template on work requiring physical presence.
For employers reviewing such roles, the practical opportunity is to make the policy more accountable. A team should be able to explain what its arrangement helps it accomplish, where the difficulties remain and what it will examine next. That is a more useful performance review than recording how many times the rule has been rewritten.