How to Build a Better Attendance Policy: Part 2

In my last article, I made the case that point-based attendance policies aren’t inherently bad — they’re just not as robust as they could be. This article explores how we might build a more balanced system: one that holds agents accountable for missed work, but also gives them a sense of autonomy and empowerment while supporting service levels.

As a refresher, many current systems follow a similar formula: three infractions over six months might lead to a final warning, and the fourth to termination. Maybe your system is less punitive, but the general idea of “infractions over time” is a common theme.

My goal here isn’t to blow up those structures, just to tweak them.

What if, instead of agents racking up negative infractions, they earned positive attendance credits? That simple switch — from penalizing absences to rewarding presence — creates a significant psychological shift. Think of it this way: how many of us remember if points from a five-year-old speeding ticket have dropped off our license? Now compare that to how closely we track the balance in our checking account. That’s the power of reframing.

Another area worth rethinking: how we measure missed time. In many systems, missing one hour or three hours can count the same as missing an entire day. The goal is to discourage partial absences, but in reality, it often backfires. Once an agent knows they’ve “lost the point,” they may choose to miss the full day — costing us even more productivity.

Instead, what if one hour missed equals one point lost? If someone misses four hours, they lose four points. A full day? Eight points. A ten-hour shift? Ten points. You get the idea. By treating time proportionally, we encourage agents to come in for at least part of their shift rather than not at all.

But here’s the critical piece: give agents a path to earn their way back into good standing.

This is the gap most policies fail to address. Beyond hoping that life doesn’t get in the way, what actions can an agent take to maintain their job?

The answer lies in building a system that recognizes the broader definition of trustworthiness. Because ultimately, that’s what attendance policies are about — can we count on you?

If someone misses too much work, we fire them because we don’t believe we can trust them to show up. But too often, we ignore the other side of the story. The same agent who called out last week might also be the one who regularly picks up overtime to protect service levels. Or clocks out early when we’re overstaffed to help manage costs. Those actions may serve the agent’s interests, but they also benefit the business. It’s a win-win.

If those behaviors help us, why wouldn’t they also help agents earn their points back?

Picking up a shift during low staffing, volunteering for VTO during overstaffing, maintaining perfect attendance, adjusting their schedule to meet a business need, or swapping shifts with a coworker — these are all forms of attendance support. Yet too often, we give agents zero credit for them.

That’s what I’m proposing. If missing an hour costs a point, then working an hour of overtime could earn it back. Miss a full day and lose eight points? Pick up a full shift and earn eight back.

We can build in additional layers, too. Maybe a no-call/no-show results in a larger deduction — 16 or even 24 points for a full shift. That encourages the right behaviors: if you’re going to be late or absent, communicate.

Of course, this isn’t a free-for-all. Agents can’t just add or subtract hours whenever they want. These adjustments should be guided by interval-level net staffing — ideally powered by your WFM system — and can include constraints. Maybe agents can’t pick up more than eight hours of overtime a week, or reduce their schedule by more than ten. These are restrictions you can define and manage either through WFM tools or manual processes if needed.

This isn’t the Wild West. It’s about making your policy more flexible without losing structure. Giving agents the ability to earn and spend points rather than only be penalized for falling short.

This small shift can make a substantial difference for agents already juggling dozens of metrics every day. It’s one way we can bring fairness, motivation and clarity to a system that too often feels one-sided.

And if your WFM system allows agents to self-manage their schedule adjustments, even better. Many tools now support rule-based self-scheduling — letting agents add hours during low staffing or reduce hours during high staffing without WFM reviewing every request. You can even build in buffers: maybe five agents can leave early if you're 15 overstaffed, but only two if you're eight over. That level of control is achievable in most modern platforms.

To be clear: I’m not saying point-based systems are broken. But many infraction-based policies are too simplistic. They don’t consider the full range of attendance behaviors we should be encouraging. Flexibility doesn’t mean chaos — and it’s not the opposite of structure. It’s what happens when structure is built to support trust and autonomy.