In both the public and private sectors, fingerprint attendance systems do not always reflect actual work performance. Some employees arrive early simply to clock in, leave to attend to personal matters, then return at the end of the day to clock out. On paper, the system records a full eight-hour workday. Yet the quality of their work, their sense of responsibility and the value they create for the organization are things no attendance machine can measure.

If human resource management focuses only on monitoring physical presence rather than actual performance, attendance systems can easily become something employees learn to work around rather than a tool for improving productivity.

In the public sector, the issue carries even greater significance. Citizens rarely care whether a civil servant arrives at the office at 7:30 am or 8:00 am. What matters to them is whether their applications are processed on time, whether they have to make repeated trips, whether they receive clear guidance and whether they are treated with professionalism and respect.

For many years, Vietnam's civil service management has focused heavily on monitoring inputs. Attendance, working hours, professional conduct, administrative procedures and documentation are all necessary. However, they answer only whether a civil servant is present and complies with regulations. They do not fully answer how much work has been completed, how well it has been carried out, or whether public services have genuinely improved.

The distinction between these two management approaches is fundamental. Input-based management focuses on working hours, the number of meetings attended, documents signed, reports submitted and staff attendance. 

Results-based management, by contrast, emphasizes application processing time, on-time completion rates, the number of times citizens must provide additional documents, genuine citizen satisfaction and coordination among different departments.

Where does attendance tracking fit in civil service management?

Vietnam should not frame the debate as whether attendance tracking should be retained or abolished. The more important question is where attendance tracking fits within the broader civil service management system. 

If it only serves as a basic disciplinary tool, it remains necessary. But if it becomes the primary yardstick for evaluating employee contributions, we risk confusing those who are physically present with those who actually perform well.

This issue deserves particular attention as Vietnam's two-tier local government system begins operating. Following the restructuring of the administrative apparatus, commune-level governments have become the primary interface between public policy and people's daily lives.

Citizens visit commune offices not only to submit applications but also to seek guidance, explanations and assurance that their lawful rights will be handled on time, in accordance with the law and with a genuine service mindset.

Improving the quality of commune-level civil servants should begin with more than simply enforcing working hours. It should start by clearly defining the value each position is expected to create for citizens. 

Staff working at one-stop administrative service centers should be assessed based on processing time, on-time completion rates, the number of times applicants must supplement documents and the quality of the guidance they provide. 

Achieving this requires digitizing workflows in a way that evaluates the entire chain of public service delivery rather than simply recording arrival and departure times. With accurate data, managers can identify the real bottlenecks in administrative procedures rather than merely confirming that employees show up for work.

Another crucial point is to distinguish clearly between positions where presence is mandatory and those that can be flexible. 

Civil servants who directly receive the public, handle procedures at the one-stop shop, healthcare, security, and perform duties requiring regular interaction with citizens cannot work remotely. However, certain tasks involving analysis, synthesis, report formulation, data processing, or internal document preparation can be organized more flexibly if there is a clear task assignment and outcome control mechanism.

Nonetheless, outcome-based management cannot turn into a superficial KPI race. If everyone completes their duties well, every department hits its targets, and every report boasts a high satisfaction rate, the evaluation system will lose its warning function. 

The hardest part does not lie in the software or the templates, but in our determination to differentiate between those who do real work and those who perform superficially, between those who take responsibility and those who evade it.

The time attendance machine is therefore not to blame. It only becomes problematic when viewed as the central metric of public service efficiency.

Nguyen Phuoc Thang, Hoa Binh University