Create a Winning Attendance Policy: Part 3

In article one, we covered that infraction-based attendance policies — those that only track points and lead to termination — are incomplete. In article two, we explored what a more robust and balanced attendance system could look like. And in this final article, we’re getting to the heart of the matter: why it all even matters.

Let’s start with the one your boss is likely to care about most — this approach improves financials. I know because I’ve seen it work.

When we implemented a robust attendance policy that provided schedule flexibility and autonomy within clear boundaries, we saw a reduction in overtime usage and a decrease in overall labor hours. On top of that, abandon rates and service levels improved. How? Because we encouraged our agents to adjust their schedules in ways that also improved business outcomes.

Agents picked up overtime when we needed it — and reduced their hours when it benefited the business — because it also benefited them. It wasn’t a magic bullet, but cutting our abandon rate in half and being the only department to stay within budget for three years straight were real outcomes of this program.

It's also important to step back and consider the environment many of our agents work in. As leaders, we might overlook how unusual it is to have every minute of your workday tracked and measured — but that’s their reality. Some organizations script every word an agent says, or have adherence goals so high that agents are afraid to drink too much coffee or water. That may not be your environment, but it does happen. Autonomy is often in short supply.

I’ve said it before: this isn’t about letting agents do whatever they want. There are boundaries. But giving agents the ability to adjust their schedules in a controlled, consistent way gives them a small sense of control in an environment where they’re often given none.

And the transparency required to allow agents to flex up or down is far more fair than the old-school method of shouting out overtime and hoping the right people are nearby. Add a predictable process — for example, making extra hours or VTO available at a set time each week — and you’ve just improved the fairness and clarity of the system even more.

Those elements — transparency, fairness and autonomy — are foundational to engagement and psychological safety. And when agents feel those things, they’re more likely to stay, to perform and to invest in their work.

As I mentioned earlier, the customer benefits, too. When agents self-select into balancing out net staffing, the customer experience becomes more consistent. Service levels and abandon rates don’t need to skyrocket — they just need to stabilize. Customers don’t necessarily expect to be answered on the first ring every time, but they do expect a consistent experience. When they sometimes wait 30 seconds and other times wait 3 minutes, you erode trust. Whether your target is 80/20 or 90/60, consistency is what builds confidence.

When you have a clearly defined “why,” it’s easier to tell ops leaders why agents shouldn’t be earning points just because their conversion or productivity is strong. Or to explain to finance why you’re not cutting additional hours when the net staffing doesn’t support it. A clearly articulated “why” helps ensure the program has longevity.

Trying to create a win for the business, the customer and the agents is hard. But having that three-part goal defined helps keep you accountable. You’ll feel pressure to shift in one direction or another — and sometimes that’s appropriate for a season. But when you lose one of the wins, it’s a signal you’ve gone too far and need to reset.

The “what” and the “how” will always evolve. But anchoring your program in a well-defined “why” gives you the roots you need to return to when things get messy.

And in contact centers? They always get a little messy.