AT&T, one of the largest telecommunications firms in the United States, is pulling back from its heavy dependence on a controversial workplace monitoring system that was designed to enforce strict return-to-office rules. The company has openly admitted to its employees that the system, which was internally referred to as “presence reporting,” has not been consistently accurate, and that its flaws have resulted in rising frustration and even a sense of distrust among staff members. Many employees described the experience as pushing them toward exhaustion and overwhelming irritation, revealing an escalating tension between corporate objectives and employee well-being.
The presence reporting tool was originally introduced with the intent of automatically logging the hours employees spent at their designated office locations. Most staff were expected to adhere to the rigid requirement of being physically present in the office for a minimum of eight hours a day, five days per week. This tool operated by tracking a combination of digital signals, such as badge swipes, laptop network connections, and occasionally mobile device location data, to form a detailed record of attendance. Although intended to measure compliance with the company’s return-to-office strategy, the system soon became a focal point of criticism because it often produced errors, leading some employees to feel unfairly scrutinized or penalized.
AT&T’s approach is not unique. Several other major corporations—among them Amazon, JPMorgan Chase, and Microsoft—have adopted similar technologies or monitoring strategies as they reinforced return-to-office mandates. Corporate executives often argue that these measures facilitate heightened collaboration, reinforce accountability, and ultimately boost productivity. Yet, actual results observed across industries have been inconsistent, with some evidence suggesting that excessive surveillance might erode trust and reduce morale instead of fostering a high-performing culture.
Kellyn Kenny, AT&T’s chief marketing and growth officer, acknowledged these challenges directly in a meeting with her division last month. She explained that the company would be less reliant on the presence tracking framework after hearing overwhelming feedback from employees, who overwhelmingly voiced their discontent about its accuracy and fairness. The tool had initially been used to identify individuals who were rarely present in the office, but Kenny conceded that it contained errors and emphasized that employees should not treat the reports as daily, weekly, or even monthly benchmarks for their performance. She clarified that leadership no longer expects managers to examine the system that closely, signaling a shift away from stringent reliance on the data.
Companywide, AT&T has begun reprioritizing how this data is used, especially for salaried employees. CEO John Stankey highlighted this change in an internal memo distributed to the workforce, where he explained that the company was evolving its use of behavioral analytics. Rather than tracking each worker at an individual level, he stated that the company was leaning toward analyzing broad behavioral patterns from large groups to determine whether activities aligned with long-term priorities and expectations. Importantly, Stankey emphasized that an employee’s name would only be linked to the data if their behavior deviated substantially from the broader peer group, an acknowledgment that the balance between trust and oversight is delicate and must be carefully managed.
Nevertheless, this evolution did not occur spontaneously. The catalyst was a recent employee survey that gathered direct input regarding workplace policies. While the survey did not explicitly ask about presence reporting, it did ask employees whether they felt supported by AT&T’s policies and systems in delivering their best work. Approximately half of respondents in Kenny’s division responded negatively. Many of these individuals used open-text responses to voice specific concerns about the return-to-office mandate and the frustrations associated with attendance reports, citing real-life challenges such as difficulty scheduling medical appointments without risking a negative mark in the system. The clear disapproval reflected in those responses provided leadership with a deeper understanding of the anxiety and mistrust the system was generating.
Kenny admitted that she hadn’t fully appreciated the level of stress the system had produced until she read the feedback. Employees were not merely expressing technical complaints about inaccuracies; they were articulating how the flawed system directly undermined morale, created apprehension about career stability, and cultivated a sense of being unfairly monitored. Workers feared that inaccurate data could later be used against them as justification for layoffs or disciplinary measures, even though AT&T had not yet directly penalized individuals due to system errors.
It is worth noting, however, that the monitoring tools did serve a purpose at one time. Kenny conceded that the reports helped leadership identify extreme cases of non-compliance—such as employees who came into the office for only a few minutes, grabbed coffee, and then left. These so-called “freeloaders” were singled out, and the company took appropriate action to address their behavior. But Kenny made clear that such scenarios had already been resolved, and therefore the original justification for deploying the system with such intensity largely no longer existed.
The company’s evolving stance reflects broader challenges across corporate America as leaders attempt to balance oversight with trust. Other firms illustrate the pitfalls of overreliance on these systems. For instance, Amazon had once labeled employees with terms such as “inconsistent badger” or “zero badger,” depending on their compliance with its three-day mandate, only to abandon the labels after employees complained. Likewise, studies, including research by CBRE, indicate that two-thirds of large employers track attendance, but many acknowledge that excessive enforcement can trigger unintended costs by alienating top talent, creating hiring challenges, or forcing voluntary attrition among high performers.
AT&T itself faces a particularly delicate balancing act. As it modernizes its infrastructure by dismantling its legacy copper networks and investing billions into fiber and 5G deployment, the company is simultaneously working toward massive cost-cutting goals estimated at around $6 billion. Achieving these efficiencies has already involved significant workforce reductions—AT&T started the year with around 140,000 employees, compared to more than 160,000 at the beginning of 2023. In this context, stringent attendance monitoring becomes intertwined with broader concerns about job security, compensation, and long-term career paths.
Employees interviewed by Business Insider illustrated how frustrating the system’s glitches had been. Reports could miscalculate hours by several hours a week. A short lunch break or an unplanned badge swipe on an off day could disrupt weekly averages, making it seem as though workers fell short of the company’s rigid eight-hour daily requirement. Situations like these blurred the line between genuine underperformance and mere technical mishaps, thereby undermining motivation. Some employees admitted that rather than striving to go above and beyond, they had adopted a minimalist mindset: because the system only counted eight hours, they now restricted themselves to working exactly what was required. This subtle but critical shift in attitude demonstrates how rigid oversight can backfire when applied uniformly without allowance for flexibility.
Although technical improvements to the reporting accuracy have been noted in recent months, trust is not something easily restored. For many employees, the damage was already done. Experiencing a system that monitored them intrusively, recorded data incorrectly, and threatened their sense of professional autonomy fundamentally reshaped how they viewed AT&T’s culture. Even with modifications, it will likely take sustained efforts—and not just quick fixes—to rebuild confidence, reassure workers of their value, and convince them that corporate objectives are not being pursued at the cost of employee dignity and fairness.
In summary, AT&T’s retreat from strict dependence on presence tracking reflects both an internal reckoning and a broader lesson for corporate America: while data-driven tools can uncover trends and expose true cases of abuse, haphazard implementation erodes trust, burdens employees with unnecessary stress, and diminishes morale. For organizations seeking productivity and loyalty, the path forward lies not in relentless surveillance, but in cultivating a culture of transparency, respect, and balance that encourages employees to perform at their best without feeling like they are under constant suspicion.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/att-system-for-tracking-employees-rto-compliance-2025-9
