People who work together as teams expect equity not equality sure, but converting WFH into a perk ignores social pressures on mothers, people with long commutes, you name it.
I've managed teams, I think my teams would have hated this and HR would have forbidden it.
you're going to be accused of using the wrong work control point to avoid pay rises.
If this is your SAAS model, I would not recommend it to my company basically.
1. Two employees working at the same position often have differences in wages.
2. Promotions also, are based on individual performance.
What makes WFH any different?
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think you're trying to change the nature of work in a way which favours the company over the employee, against the emerging norm. Imagine if you're recruiting and you say "we issue WFH on a case by case basis and adjust it as a reward for performance" and then think about an employees reaction "so I have no certainty, and you can judge me arbitrarily on performance issues I might not control and remove my ability to plan worklife balance.. or I could go work for this other company...."
Glassdoor would be all over this.
So, your less performant engineers would have to go to the office and work with other low performers? Do you think that will improve the situation for them? I bet that would rather make it worse. Also, your best engineers would be afraid of having "low performance seasons" because that would mean return to the office for them. I would definitely not like to work in such an environment.
Maybe you could develop it on some HR platform as an extension.
And as if companies and teams will use it, that's a good question. I believe a good manager will hate it, so does a good company.
Good managers doesn't need to track employees nor tie this to performance, and instead want to do their own independent evaluation, related to impact of the worker in the company, projects & assignments.
The same applies to companies, sure, there'll be many companies willing to adopt such solution, but let's all admit that if they use it, it's a clear sign that the company sucks and can't properly manage itself.
So, I also question the need of that product, but anyways, as I've said before, there might be lots of clueless companies willing to use it. Try it?
WFH policy should probably be individual. If a company culture is everyone is remote and no office and someone can’t work like that then it’s not a good fit. Juniors and people starting out probably would benefit greatly from being in an office, provided there are other people there to collaborate with.
Second, it's a problem solved by a spreadsheet, not by a SAAS solution.
Do you mandate your employees to buy a car and commute using it, or do you leave it to them to choose whatever they want? even if someone chooses to commute cycling for 1.5hrs, it isn’t your concern, wfh/rto should be ultimately an employee decision in most companies, unless the company is stating clearly before hiring, either fully remote or fully in office.
- If the company wants to do WFH successfully, it needs to be part of the org's DNA, otherwise it won't work. Making WFH conditional on performance is the complete wrong direction.
- Not having a firm WFH commitment from my employer removes most of the benefit of WFH (I'd still be geographically limited)
- This would create a huge divide between high performers and others which would not be good for morale (typical rewards like bonuses are not so visible)
> (typical rewards like bonuses are not so visible)
This makes sense.
Thank you for your feedback!
Varies by company and practices.
The real end result is that you just PIP and fire the people who can't get above the acceptable line, you don't make them come into the office.
Speculating that if such a system was employed in many current tech companies, what you'd find is that some director/VP/higher-up would be a personal zealot for RTO because their commute is easy, and would gerrymander all performance reviews to ensure the vast majority of their reports wind up back in the office.