Inflexible attendance rules hurt contact center culture, expert says
NEW YORK, UNITED STATES — Across countless contact centers, attendance policies have become a source of confusion and frustration.
Most organizations rely on a familiar formula: a point system, progressive discipline, and the classic “three strikes and you’re out” rule, with strikes falling off after six months. While these systems may keep things orderly on the surface, their underlying philosophy is rarely questioned.
“Attendance policies that are rooted in infraction systems are built to reinforce compliance — not accountability,” notes Dan Smitley, a workforce management consultant with over 20 years in the industry.
“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 hidden costs: Presenteeism and low engagement
The central flaw, Smitley argues, is that these policies focus almost exclusively on presence, not participation. While being physically present is easy to measure, it does little to capture whether employees are engaged or adding value.
This dynamic can inadvertently encourage “presenteeism”—where employees show up sick or disengaged, believing that merely being present is what matters.
“Showing up sick isn’t a strength of the employee; it’s a weakness of the culture,” Smitley explains.
In environments where trust is low and rule-following is paramount, accountability and genuine engagement often fall by the wayside.
The problem with rigid point systems
Another issue is the lack of nuance in most infraction-based systems. “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,” Smitley points out. This structure removes any incentive for employees to salvage part of their shift, as the penalty remains the same.
Moreover, employees have little control over their standing. “Besides hoping life doesn’t throw too many curveballs over the next six months, there usually aren’t any [ways to get back in good standing],” Smitley says.
This lack of autonomy only adds to the rigid, low-trust environment that many contact center agents already face.
Toward flexible, trust-based solutions
Smitley advocates for a shift in philosophy: “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?’”
He suggests that balancing structure with flexibility and rewarding accountability, not just compliance, could benefit both employees and organizations.
“When people are trusted with control over their time, they’re far more likely to earn that trust back,” he concludes.
