[Daeryaknangam Remote Work①] The Pitfalls of Attendance Management... Employees Say "Surveillance," Companies Say "Communication"

Remote and Flexible Work Become Routine in IT Industry
‘Attendance Management’ Emerges as a New Concern
Workers: "Managing and Supervising Private Spaces Due to Attendance Is a Clear Invasion of Privacy"
Employers: "Real-Time Feedback from Employees Is Extremely Important"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kang Nahum] "Since remote work is a system designed for the convenience of employees, companies need to introduce systems for attendance management and evaluation."

"Even if working from home, the home is clearly a private space, and managing or supervising private spaces under the pretext of attendance is a clear invasion of privacy."

Remote and flexible work have become commonplace in the IT industry, including companies like Naver and Kakao. Amid this, the traditional key criterion for employee evaluation, ‘attendance management,’ has become a new point of controversy. As the home becomes the workplace and the boundary between public and private spheres blurs, conflicts have arisen between employees and companies over companies’ attempts to intervene in private areas under the guise of minimal attendance management.

Those who support the company’s stance that employees who dislike attendance management should just come to the office are mostly managers. Employees working remotely have the exact opposite view. Since remote and flexible work have become routine, they argue that evaluations should be based solely on individual work performance and productivity, and that debating meaningless attendance management means changing only the system but operating it as before. ▶[Related Article] 'Awkward Remote Work'

Between Surveillance and Management

Leading domestic IT companies such as Naver, Kakao, and SK Telecom are increasingly adopting remote work. The shift in work styles following the endemic phase is spreading throughout industries. According to a recent survey by the Korea Employers Federation on the ‘Status of Remote Work Following the Lifting of Social Distancing’ among the top 100 companies by sales, 72.7% are currently implementing remote work.

As remote work spreads, ‘attendance management’ has become a new concern for companies. The biggest discomfort for employees is the ‘surveillance’ by companies.

Even the major conglomerate Kakao faced backlash over employee surveillance during the introduction of remote work. On May 30, Kakao announced the introduction of the ‘Metaverse Work System,’ allowing employees to work from anywhere without location restrictions. The system involves connecting in real-time via a voice channel (Discord) four days a week, with one day reserved for face-to-face meetings. Kakao emphasized that employees could communicate with colleagues in real-time through the voice channel.

However, this system sparked strong opposition from employees. It was criticized as a work system resembling a Panopticon (a circular prison designed for a few guards to monitor many prisoners). In particular, the requirement to stay connected to the voice channel with speakers on or to wear bone conduction earphones for eight hours was seen as excessive.

Ultimately, on June 8, Kakao announced internally that the mandatory connection to the voice channel and the once-weekly offline meeting would be changed from ‘mandatory’ to ‘recommended.’ The core working hours were also shortened by one hour?from 1 PM to 5 PM originally, to 2 PM to 5 PM after the revision.

When Not Responding to Messenger, "Where Have You Been Playing?"

Although Kakao actively accepted employee feedback and changed its system, conflicts over attendance management in remote work persist in many companies. Many companies frequently check employees’ work status through their connection status on internal collaboration tools or messengers.

A person A working at a domestic startup said, "I get checked on my work status during lunch and quitting times through messenger connection status," and added, "If my messenger response is even slightly delayed, I get scolded with comments like ‘Where have you been playing?’"

Corporate interference in private spaces under the guise of attendance management can also lead to other forms of workplace abuse. According to a July 2020 survey by the job portal Incruit, 12.2% of 530 office workers reported being criticized for their appearance or attire during meetings, and 2% reported experiencing sexual harassment.

Another employee C at a startup said, "During video meetings, my boss once interfered, questioning why I had decorated my room background that way," adding, "In such cases, I think it would be better to just come to the office."

Despite these complaints, company executives insist on confirming employees’ work status through minimal attendance management. An executive at a small-to-medium enterprise said, "Without a way to check work attitudes during remote work, real-time feedback from employees is very important," and added, "If minimal attendance control is not implemented, organizational productivity?including work efficiency, continuity, and interdepartmental collaboration?will not be properly maintained."

SI Industry: "Second-Level Attendance Management Is Possible, But..."

Major domestic system integration (SI) companies have been developing attendance management systems for years, anticipating remote and even metaverse work environments. With current technology, as long as there is an internet connection, various tasks can be performed remotely using PCs, tablets, or smartphones, and attendance can be managed down to the second.

For example, a large SI affiliate, Company A, developed technology that evaluates overall work time and identifies focused work hours by analyzing laptop cameras, applications, and web browser usage records. However, commercialization was abandoned due to criticism of ‘excessive invasion of privacy’ during the evaluation phase. From management’s perspective, it was an optimal solution for remote work, but employees felt it was like a prison.

Remote work can increase individual productivity but is considered insufficient for improving team or department-wide productivity. Meeting preparation times during work hours tend to be longer, and tasks that could be easily handled face-to-face are delayed due to late responses to messenger or email. These issues make attendance management even more controversial. Even minor nagging can lead to being labeled a ‘bossy old-timer.’ One manager who tried to compensate for lack of physical interaction by frequently chatting about non-work topics on messenger was criticized on Blind as a ‘boss who harasses via messenger.’

D, a team leader at a domestic startup, said, "The company instructed that team leaders could decide on remote work, but since each team has different characteristics and work styles, implementation is difficult," adding, "If we suggest everyone come to the office instead of remote work, we get called ‘bossy,’ but when working remotely, work progress slows, so sometimes I think it was better when everyone came to the office."

The Solution Is "Increasing Mutual Trust Between Labor and Management"

How does the labor authority view these conflicts? The Ministry of Employment and Labor released a ‘Comprehensive Manual for Remote Work’ in 2020 during the peak of COVID-19, diagnosing that for remote work to be successfully established, the level of mutual trust between companies and remote workers must be increased.

Based on this, the Ministry explained that systems should shift from ‘control-based’ to ‘autonomy-based.’ A ministry official said, "From a team leader’s perspective, reduced face-to-face contact can be frustrating, leading to excessive online monitoring," but added, "However, excessive intervention and control can hinder work and negatively affect performance."

The Ministry also advised companies to move away from the traditional attendance management focus on the quantity of work hours. The official said, "Efforts to accurately measure and manage work performance are more important," and added, "Departments or team leaders responsible for performance management should prioritize transparency and fairness in performance evaluation when managing their teams."