Why Your Attendance Policy is Undermining Your Company: Part 1

Throughout my career, I’ve seen attendance policies be either the thing that no one fully understands or the bane of everyone’s existence. Interestingly enough, most attendance policies are similar. A basic point system. Progressive discipline. Usually something like “three strikes and you’re out.” Strikes fall off after six months. Sound familiar?

Sure, I’ve seen some slight variations, but for the most part, this is the way many contact centers handle attendance. And it works…to a point.

My goal isn’t to tear these systems down. It’s to ask if they’ve become too limiting — and whether there might be a better way. The problem isn’t the policy itself, it’s the philosophy underneath it.

Think about how we view attendance outside of work. School. Community meetings. Maybe your house of worship. The metric is simple: were they there? Maybe — if we’re being extra attentive — we ask if they were on time. But rarely do we consider: did they add value? Were they engaged? Did their presence contribute anything to the space?

These systems focus on presence; not participation. And that’s the core issue.

Attendance policies that are rooted in infraction systems are built to reinforce compliance — not accountability. If you simply show up, you’re seen as equal to the person who’s actively contributing, collaborating and investing in the day. That’s a problem.

The result? Presenteeism becomes a badge of honor. Coming to work sick or disengaged is quietly celebrated. We may not openly reward someone for dragging themselves into the office coughing and miserable, but it’s often subconsciously marked as a “good” thing. From where I sit, showing up sick isn’t a strength of the employee; it’s a weakness of the culture.

I can already hear some familiar responses from leaders I’ve worked with:

“We need systems like this because our agents don’t want to show up to work.”
“We can’t just let them come and go whenever they want. We’ll never hit service levels.”
“We have high standards here. Not everyone can cut it.”

Let me be clear: I’m not saying there shouldn’t be consequences when someone misses work. But what levers does the agent have to pull to get back in good standing? Besides hoping life doesn’t throw too many curveballs over the next six months, there usually aren’t any.

That lack of control only adds to the already present feeling of low autonomy in most contact centers. Agents are told when to clock in, when to go to break, when to train, when to switch channels, when they can go to the bathroom…and God help you if you drink too much water and throw off your adherence.

As a WFM guy, I get the value of structure. It can be a beautiful thing to see a schedule align perfectly to volume. I’m not anti-schedule. I’m saying that in most contact centers, the environment is already full of steps, scripts and systems that are supposed to “help” agents — but often feel like they’re built around a lack of trust.

And when trust is low, accountability takes a back seat to rule-following.

Most infraction-based systems also fail to distinguish between very different scenarios. Let’s say you’re two and a half hours late. That might count as one infraction. But a full-day absence? Also one infraction. In that case, what motivation does someone have to come in late if they’re already marked the same either way?

Aside from a bit of pay — which in many environments might be negligible or made up later — there’s little reason for the agent to help cover the remaining five or six hours of the shift. That’s a missed opportunity for both the employee and the business.

But what if attendance policies weren’t just about penalties?

What if we built systems that also included rewards for certain behaviors? What if we shifted the conversation from “Did they show up?” to “Can I count on them?”

That’s the shift I want to explore. From compliance to accountability. From clock-watching to trust-building.

In my next articles, I’ll share a different approach: a point-based system that’s still structured but more balanced. One that considers the needs of the employee while still supporting the needs of the business. One that encourages people to contribute — not just be present.

Because when people are trusted with control over their time, they’re far more likely to earn that trust back.