The pandemic experiences of forced work from home (WFH) in the tech industry turned out better than expected. As a result, modern workplaces that employ software engineers have become increasingly hybrid allowing employees to alternate days spent in the office with days spent working remotely. Yet, approaches to regulate the hybrid work arrangements vary. Some companies implemented strict policies with controlled office presence while others rely on recommendations and permit greater locational flexibility. In this paper, we evaluate how different degrees of locational flexibility influence individual work arrangements and satisfaction in two comparative cases: a company with high degree of flexibility (FinCo) and a company with mandatory office presence (TelCo). Through a survey of 547 practitioners, our findings reveal that flexible policies can achieve higher voluntary office attendance than mandatory requirements. To our surprise, we found that the number of employees visiting the office at least 2-3 days per week in the company with greater flexibility was higher (68%) compared to the company with mandatory attendance (58%). The study also identifies key factors influencing work location choices, including commute time and role. The type of tasks and dependencies with colleagues also matter - employees with more WFH days tended to have more individual tasks, while those with more onsite work days engaged in more collaborative tasks and had colleagues who depended on them. Our results suggest that trust-based approaches and creating attractive office environments may be more effective than strict attendance policies in maintaining desired office presence while supporting employee satisfaction. These findings contribute practical insights for organizations seeking to establish effective post-pandemic work policies for software engineers.

Abstract For decades, software engineering research and practice has focused primarily on technological and process-related factors. Today, there is a growing interest in organizational, social, and psychological factors, including well-being. Organizational studies show that well-being contributes to work outcomes, including creativity, performance, and productivity. But despite its importance, the predictors and outcomes of software engineers’ well-being as a multidimensional construct to date are under-researched. This paper reports on the multidimensional well-being of professional software engineers and generates insights for the future research in this area. 44 quantitative survey studies published between 2000 and 2023 were selected and synthesized both quantitatively and qualitatively through a systematic literature review. The results of the review were further analyzed to construct a quantitatively-testable theory, detailing the predictors and outcomes of well-being in software engineering organizations. The total number of research participants included in the selected studies is 16,086 software engineering professionals from at least 42 countries. The literature review identified various measures, constructs, and indicators of well-being, as well as its predictors and outcomes. The theory, based on cumulative results of carefully selected quantitative studies, is an attempt to “correct the record” by establishing well-being in software engineering as a meta-construct of hedonic, eudaimonic, and integrated or hedaimonic qualities predicted by different individual, team and organizational factors and impacting the functioning of software engineers and their organizations. The review highlighted the under-researched aspects of well-being in software engineering and confirmed the need for more advanced quantitative studies. We hope that the theory will benefit researchers in conducting future studies and practitioners in developing nuanced and science-based interventions for improving software engineers’ well-being.