The conversation about return-to-office has shifted in 2026. It is no longer about whether hybrid work is real — it clearly is — but about whether finance leaders are making deliberate policy decisions or reactive ones. And in a market where qualified finance professionals are genuinely scarce, the difference matters.
What Finance Professionals in Ireland Are Actually Asking For
This is not a story about people wanting to avoid the office. Most of the finance professionals I speak with — controllers, FP&A managers, qualified accountants moving from practice into industry — are not looking to disappear into their spare rooms indefinitely. What they want is structure they can plan around.
Two or three days in the office, clear expectations, flexibility when life requires it. That is the consistent pattern across conversations I have had through 2025 and into 2026. The word that comes up most is *predictability*. People want to know what they are committing to before they accept a role.
When a company cannot answer that question clearly at offer stage — or worse, when the policy changes after someone has been hired — trust erodes fast.
The Retention Risk That Does Not Show Up in Exit Interviews
Full-time RTO mandates are not just affecting hiring. They are quietly driving departures that firms often misread.
When someone leaves citing “career progression” or “a new challenge,” it is worth asking whether the working arrangement was part of the calculation. In most cases it was. The new opportunity simply happened to come with two days at home, and that was enough to tip the decision.
The finance talent pool in Ireland is not deep enough to absorb this kind of attrition without consequence. Replacing a financial controller or a strong FP&A manager takes time, costs significantly more than most finance leaders budget for, and puts pressure on the team left behind. That pressure, in turn, affects the next wave of retention.
A blunt mandate — come in five days or else — may feel like a management prerogative. In practice, it functions as a slow-release resignation trigger for the people you most want to keep.
Where the Real Tension Lies for Finance Teams
I want to be honest about this: there are legitimate reasons why some finance functions need more in-person time than others. Month-end close, audit preparation, onboarding a new ERP system — these genuinely benefit from proximity. A finance director who insists on full presence during a system implementation is not being unreasonable.
The problem arises when business-wide mandates are applied uniformly to finance teams without reference to actual workflow. An accounts payable function has different rhythms to a commercial finance team supporting a fast-moving sales operation. Treating them identically because it is simpler to manage is not a policy — it is an abdication of thought.
The finance leaders I see managing this well are the ones who have had an honest conversation with their teams about what requires presence and what does not. They have built a rhythm that makes sense rather than one that performs compliance with an office culture that may not fit the work anymore.
What to Do If Your Policy Is Driving People Away
If you are losing finance professionals to competitors with more flexibility — or struggling to attract candidates who go quiet when they hear your working model — here is what I would suggest.
Start with an audit of your own policy. Not the written version, but the lived one. What are people actually being asked to do, and does it reflect the nature of the work or historical habit?
Then consider whether your offer is competitive in context. Salary matters, but in 2026 it is rarely the only factor. A candidate weighing two roles at similar compensation will factor in commute time, flexibility, and whether the culture feels like it respects their life outside work. If your working model is the reason good candidates are choosing elsewhere, that is a retention and recruitment cost worth naming clearly.
Finally, if you do need more in-person time for legitimate operational reasons, say so plainly and early. Candidates respect honesty. What they resist is ambiguity — or a policy that looks flexible on the surface but functions as full-time in practice.
If you are reviewing your working model right now and wondering what the market expects, I am happy to give you a straight read on what candidates in your function and seniority range are actually being offered elsewhere. No agenda — just useful information you can act on.
