In a corporate landscape increasingly dominated by stringent return-to-office mandates, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank has made a decisive move in the opposite direction, fundamentally reshaping its workplace strategy in a way that sets it apart from nearly all its major competitors. The bank recently abandoned a strict policy that required staff to be on-site for three out of five days a week, a rule that had only been tightened months earlier from a 40% requirement. This pivot is not just a minor adjustment but a significant strategic reversal, signaling a deep reconsideration of how productivity, culture, and employee well-being are measured in the modern workplace. As other financial giants double down on in-office presence, Bendigo Bank’s decision to empower employees and their direct leaders to collaboratively determine work schedules represents a bold experiment, placing trust and flexibility at the core of its operational model. The change, which includes removing office attendance as a formal performance metric, positions the institution as a notable outlier in a widespread corporate movement pushing for a return to pre-pandemic norms.
The Power of Employee Feedback
The primary driver behind this significant policy shift was a groundswell of clear and direct opposition from the bank’s own workforce. An internal employee satisfaction survey served as a formal channel for this feedback, providing leadership with undeniable data on staff sentiment regarding the mandated 60% office presence. The Finance Sector Union (FSU) corroborated these findings, noting that its members had consistently reported significant challenges stemming from the rigid requirements. According to the FSU, teams had already begun to question and unofficially renegotiate the mandate even before the official policy reversal was announced. The core issues raised by employees were both financial and personal. Staff members pointed to the escalating costs associated with commuting, including fuel, public transportation fares, and parking, which eroded their disposable income. Furthermore, the mandatory office days were cited as a major detriment to work-life balance, creating significant disruptions to established family routines and caregiving responsibilities for children and other dependents, ultimately leading to increased stress and diminished job satisfaction.
In response to this substantial employee pushback, Bendigo Bank has implemented a new framework that will be maintained into 2026, prioritizing flexibility and dialogue over rigid enforcement. The new approach dismantles the one-size-fits-all mandate and instead fosters a system where individual employees and their direct managers collaboratively decide on a working rhythm that aligns with both personal needs and team objectives. This model acknowledges that the optimal balance between remote and in-office work can vary significantly depending on job function, team dynamics, and individual circumstances. In a particularly noteworthy move designed to underscore its commitment to this flexible philosophy, the bank has officially removed office attendance as a criterion in its formal performance evaluation process. This ensures that employees will not be penalized for their work location and that their contributions will be judged based on outcomes and performance rather than physical presence. This structural change empowers leaders to build schedules that genuinely work for their teams, aiming to boost morale, engagement, and productivity by trusting staff to manage their responsibilities effectively.
Charting a Different Course in a Rigid Sector
Bendigo Bank’s employee-centric approach places it in stark contrast to the prevailing trends within the Australian financial sector. Its main competitors continue to enforce or even tighten their in-office requirements, creating a clear philosophical divide on the future of work. Commonwealth Bank, for instance, maintains a firm 50% in-office mandate for its employees. Similarly, Westpac and National Australia Bank each require staff to be on-site for two or three days per week, cementing a hybrid model that still heavily favors a physical office presence. Perhaps the most aggressive stance comes from ANZ, which has implemented a punitive system that links office attendance directly to compensation; employees who fail to meet the 40% attendance threshold risk having their variable pay reduced by as much as half. This industry-wide sentiment is further supported by a broader report from recruitment firm Robert Half, which found that 15% of Australian employers intend to increase their mandated office days, while only 9% are planning to reduce them. This data underscores just how much of an outlier Bendigo Bank has become, betting that flexibility will be a greater long-term asset than conformity.
Despite its new, more flexible policy, Bendigo Bank has not entirely abandoned the concept of the physical office, acknowledging that in-person interaction remains a vital component of its corporate identity. A spokesperson for the bank emphasized that working side-by-side is crucial for building strong business relationships, fostering a vibrant and cohesive company culture, and creating organic opportunities for collaboration, innovation, and hands-on learning. This perspective echoes sentiments previously expressed by former chief executive Marnie Baker, who had advocated for a return to the office by highlighting its benefits for employees’ “own mental health” and its importance in reinforcing the company’s identity as a “relationship bank.” This nuanced stance recognizes that while remote work offers undeniable benefits—particularly for the roughly half of its staff based in regional Australia who can better balance professional and personal lives—the office still serves as a critical hub for connection and development. The bank’s challenge, therefore, is to cultivate these in-person benefits without resorting to the rigid, top-down mandates that its employees have so clearly rejected.
A New Blueprint for Workplace Flexibility
Ultimately, Bendigo Bank’s decision to reverse its return-to-office mandate was a direct and decisive response to the collective voice of its employees. Faced with clear evidence of dissatisfaction and the tangible negative impacts of a rigid policy on work-life balance and personal finances, the institution chose a path of adaptation rather than enforcement. This move differentiated it from its peers, who largely opted for stricter controls and, in some cases, punitive measures to compel office attendance. The bank’s new framework, which prioritized collaborative scheduling and decoupled performance from physical presence, represented a significant investment in employee trust and autonomy. This strategic pivot not only addressed the immediate concerns of its current workforce but also positioned the bank as a potentially more attractive employer in a competitive talent market, signaling that it was a company that listened and was willing to evolve its workplace culture in a meaningful way.
