The correlation between performance and office attendance is deeply flawed. It’s a poor metric because it measures presence rather than productivity or impact. Using badge swipes focuses on input (time in office) rather than output (the actual results of work). Yet, several quite prominent companies have implemented office attendance tracking as part of their performance evaluation process.

Amazon monitors badge swipes, Meta reviews badge data on a monthly basis, and employees at Dell receive quarterly color-coded flags based on their on-site presence. Well, there are even more big brands pushing for the same illogical approach, which just creates resentment and inefficiency within the workplace.

‍

The definition of performance and productivity

In a business setting, performance reflects how well an organization uses its resources to reach its goals. It covers multiple areas, such as financial growth, operational effectiveness, customer experience, and workforce productivity. The latter refers to the efficiency with which work is completed. In other words, how effectively inputs are transformed into outputs. Productivity measures how much value is created within a given time frame. It’s not about working long hours but prioritizing the right tasks, automating where possible, and eliminating inefficiencies.

‍

Performance is about how well work is done and its overall impact, whereas productivity is about how efficiently work gets done.

‍

If a business wants to track performance, it shouldn’t focus on effort or time spent in a physical location but on how well tasks, objectives, or business functions are carried out. Of course, we can read multiple statements claiming that “work is done better together,” which seems to be the justification for return-to-office mandates in many companies. While office attendance is a flawed metric for measuring performance, it can be leveraged as a tool to enhance performance when used strategically and not as a rigid requirement. It can indeed help when quick problem-solving and creative teamwork are essential or when real-time communication is crucial. That makes sense - but only when it serves a clear, measurable purpose. Sadly, this is hardly ever the case, as the true drivers behind RTO are often financial, psychological, and managerial concerns.

‍

‍

The right way to measure productivity

Tracking productivity should be about measuring real output, not just presence. The key aspects of properly defining productivity include output per hour worked, efficiency (how well tasks are completed with minimal waste, effort, or resources), and the balance between quality and quantity. Although this seems like a no-brainer, companies still struggle to shift their focus.

A software engineer’s productivity should be measured by the features delivered and the quality of code, not by the number of hours spent in the office. A customer support agent’s success should be about average ticket resolution time and customer satisfaction ratings, not how many calls they take. A marketing campaign’s impact should be assessed by engagement, conversion rates, and ROI - not the number of meetings attended. It’s simple, and yet so many organizations continue to get it wrong.

‍

Measuring performance in the digital working era

In case you haven’t noticed, it’s not 1965 anymore. Back then, most jobs required employees to be in the same place at the same time, using physical tools and paper-based workflows. Productivity was measured in physical output, and performance was easy to track because tasks were repetitive. What mattered was how many products were assembled per hour, and if you weren’t physically around, you simply weren’t part of the conversation.

Today, the digital revolution, automation, and remote work have completely transformed ways of working. Traditional productivity metrics, such as hours worked or office presence, are outdated. Instead, companies should focus on outcomes, efficiency, and impact.

Many organizations claim to have performance management systems designed to develop employees, drive success, and boost productivity. In reality, most of these systems are outdated, ineffective, and even demotivating. The famous annual performance reviews are a prime example of this - they are slow, rigid, and irrelevant by the time they happen. Employees get feedback too late to act on it, and instead of measuring meaningful results, these reviews track inputs, busyness, and optics rather than real business impact. Even worse, they often lack alignment with company goals, leaving employees disconnected from how their work contributes to overall strategy.

‍

‍

Performance measurement has to change. If companies keep relying on outdated systems, they’ll keep losing great people and watching engagement drop. Instead of obsessing over attendance or ticking boxes once a year in a performance review, businesses need to focus on what actually matters - real-time feedback, meaningful goals, and growth plans that genuinely help people do their best work.

‍

‍

‍