Solved? Debate between RTO/WFO and WFH
Ok, so hear me out (actually read, but okay!)
Hire a person, have them work in office all 5 days for a year or two. Once you know the person is a good fit for your culture, give them permanent WFH.
Pros: Companies don’t feel that they don’t have a physical presence. The senior leadership consistently see group of people in office and the new joiners get enough grooming and visibility to succeed. The people who get WFH are happy that they save money that was earlier used in travelling and all. HRs are happy cause they don’t see a lot of attrition since people would want to stay put till they get WFH.
Thoughts?
*RTO: Return to office
Good suggestion, but it only works for juniors or freshers. This is perfect for freshers.
But someone with 10 years of experience doesn't want to relocate for 2 years and then go back remote. 2 years is a long time so they'll have to make lifestyle changes.
And if they keep giving remote only to selected few every year, then the teams would start to hate each other. It's either go all in and give full remote to everyone (e.g., Hike, GitLab) or make it onsite for all.