Experts provide insights on how to roll out effective tools to track office attendance, employee productivity
Earlier this year, AT&T called employees back to the office five days a week and rolled out a “presence reporting” system to track attendance.
But the system, designed to identify “freeloaders,” quickly became a source of frustration for workers due to its inaccuracies and intrusive nature.
AT&T’s chief marketing officer, Kellyn Kenny, admitted the system was “driving people to the brink of frustration” and “creating distrust,” according to Business Insider.
As a result, the company is now scaling back its use of the technology and shifting toward broader behavioural data analysis rather than individual tracking.
So, what can HR learn from AT&T’s situation? We talked to the experts for insights on how to successfully roll out employee monitoring tools.
Transparency in workplace tech
One big problem for AT&T? Lack of transparency, according to Elena Proskurnina, founder of WorkTime.
“They did not explain very well. Maybe they didn’t know themselves what the software is doing. Maybe they forgot why they’re doing it in the first place... [but] nice people working very well... they see it as a punishment. They don’t understand what’s going on.”
That’s why communication is paramount with this kind of tech rollout, she says: “When people don’t know what you want from them, and they don’t feel safe, they don’t feel comfortable, forget about a healthy environment at work — that’s done. They start to suspect; they start to imagine… The brightest employees, they might just quit.”
Michel Anteby, professor of management and organizations, and sociology at Boston University, also emphasized the need for transparency in monitoring systems. The AT&T situation “backfired, in part, because people didn’t know what was happening,” he suggests.
“Trying to be transparent, upfront in how people might be monitored, to me, is like the basic step to build a decent level of trust.”
Daniel Glickman agrees that workforce monitoring should take a transparent, privacy-first approach “that balances workforce visibility with employee rights and ethical use.”
“This means excluding non-business activity details and sensitive data from reporting, and sharing with employees what data will be collected, how it will be used and who has access to it," says the senior director of product marketing at ActivTrak.
‘It should not make employees feel watched’
AT&T’s presence reporting system tracked badge swipes, laptop connections, and cellphone data to monitor office attendance. But employees reported frequent errors, such as missed hours when stepping out for lunch or incorrect averages when working on weekends.
These inaccuracies raised concerns about being unfairly targeted for layoffs, says Business Insider.
Employers have a right to expect employees to work to earn their salary, says Proskurnina – and some people aren’t as productive as they could be or lack self-awareness.
“Lots of people, they say, ‘Oh, I wasn't on the phone that much... I've been working,’” she says, but when presented with results showing their distracted time away from work, they are surprised by the data. “People don't realize how much time they actually waste.”
WorkTime avoids recording content, screenshots, or keystrokes, focusing instead on productivity metrics such as attendance, active time, productive time, productivity in-office vs. remote work, and performance progress, she says.
Monitoring can also help identify underused resources or overworked teams, leading to better workload balancing and cost savings, says Proskurnina: “It’s not about watching every individual. The data should be used to improve processes, not to police people.”
Maximizing performance with data insights
To be successful with the tools, employers should clearly explain why monitoring is being introduced, show the benefits to the company and employees, offer Q&A session or guides for employees, and have managers use the tech as a coaching tool, “not for punishment,” says Proskurnina.
When used correctly, advanced workforce analytics technologies can provide "deep insights" about focus, efficiency and collaboration that help organizations improve productivity and maximize performance, says Glickman.
“In fact, many successful organizations empower employees with their own personal insights to guide healthy work habits. This data can also be used to understand capacity, optimize utilization and inform strategic workforce planning decisions across teams and functions.”
Avoiding ‘blind trust’ in tech tools
But these tools should take a non-invasive approach, says Proskurnina: “Employee monitoring should never feel like surveillance. It should help teams work more effectively, not make employees feel watched.”
Common mistakes made by employers, she says, are:
- launching without proper communication, so “employees feel blindsided”
- over-collecting data which leads to legal and morale risks
- leaving policies vague, causing confusion and mistrust
- giving too many people access, leading to privacy breaches.
Anteby also warned against relying solely on automated systems: “The blind trust in a ranking measurement system, and giving you an automatic kind of data point for anyone’s working life, is troubling and has been shown, in other settings, to not prove very productive.”
He warned against systems meant to catch “rogue employees” because they’re designed around the anomaly, not the norm.
“My sense is that there are lots of efforts deployed to handle the outliers, rather than thinking about ways that might encourage those who want to come or who are already partly there to maintain presence.”
It’s probably more efficient to put in place incentives rather than a reporting system, says Anteby, especially when it comes to the return to the office.
“[It’s] a complicated problem that I don't think can entirely be solved by cracking down on non-compliant employees.”
Limits to monitoring software
Ultimately, the success of employee monitoring depends on organizational culture and trust.
“It’s not the frustration of being monitored per se, but it’s more like a resentment about not being trusted in the performance of your work or even being second guessed in how you proceed,” says Anteby.
With the AT&T situation, some employees felt that exemplary or above-and-beyond efforts — such as taking initiative or working late to complete a project — were not reflected in the tracking system.
Anteby echoed this sentiment, highlighting a situation involving primary care physicians who often work overtime hours: “Under these circumstances, when you’re actually trying to do your best and juggling a lot, being second-guessed on how you can organize your day is slightly insulting.”
Is management better than software?
Anteby suggests that some of this increased focus on employee monitoring software may be “an artifact” of managers avoiding their jobs.
“You’re outsourcing the actual people management, leadership job to a device because it feels less threatening to bring in an employee and have a conversation.”
Peter Cappelli also questioned the need for technology if supervisors are doing their jobs.
“It’s not a skills issue. Holding people accountable has to be mandated from the top, and it has been pushed down to each team to do. No supervisor wants to be the bad guy,” says the George W. Taylor professor of management at the Wharton School and director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources.
Cappelli argued that pre-pandemic accountability measures—such as supervisors holding employees responsible for attendance—remain effective.
“I don’t think they need the technology if supervisors are doing their job. They can make exceptions; they can listen to explanations,” he says.
“This is what performance appraisals conducted by supervisors are supposed to do. The tech here is just monitoring attendance, nothing more. “
Effective use of monitoring technology depends on management’s approach, according to Proskurnina.
“Managers should focus on trends and team workflows rather than scrutinizing individuals. This builds trust and ensures monitoring becomes a tool for better decision-making, not micromanagement.”
Good managers, when they see someone is struggling, will ask what’s going on and offer support, she says: “Managers must shift from a ‘control mindset’ to a ‘support mindset.’
