The Three Biggest Risks of Not Tracking Working Hours
by Alexander Huber
Many companies consciously decide not to track working hours. They want to signal trust, foster self-organization, and avoid breaking work down into minutes and hours. This attitude is understandable, but it often rests on assumptions rather than facts. The BAuA Working Time Survey 2019, one of the most comprehensive studies on working time behavior in Germany, paints a different picture: where working time is not recorded, more strain, more ambiguity, and less flexibility arise.
(Source: BAuA 2021)
This article highlights the three biggest risks companies face when working hours are not tracked. It is not about bureaucracy or control, but about how organizations can work sustainably and how time tracking becomes a tool that creates freedom rather than restricting it.
1. Invisible overload: when work gets out of control without anyone noticing
Of all risks, this one is the most dangerous because it develops silently. BAuA data shows that employees without time tracking experience significantly more long weekly working hours, shortened rest periods, and more unpaid overtime.
(BAuA 2021, graphic on temporal boundary erosion, p. 12)
Why does overload arise precisely where working hours are not tracked? Because no one sees how much is actually being worked, not the employees themselves and certainly not their managers. In many teams, the perception of one’s own working hours is distorted: people overestimate or underestimate, work extensively during fringe hours, or take on additional tasks without anyone seeing the full picture. Time tracking is not about control; it provides an objective perspective.
This invisible overload is especially critical because, in the long term, it not only leads to exhaustion but also weakens a team’s ability to remain innovative, adaptable, and reliable. Exhausted people make poorer decisions, work more reactively, and lose focus. Companies only feel this when it’s already costly when projects take longer, errors increase, or employees resign.
A real-world example illustrates this issue: a consulting firm had been operating in a pure trust-based working time model for years. When preparing for scale and implementing time cockpit, it became clear that actual working hours significantly exceeded expectations. Many employees were working 7–10 hours more per week than officially assumed. Over the year, this amounted to an additional full-time position — unpaid, unplanned, and unnoticed. Only once the data became visible did discussions arise about priorities, staffing, and what level of work was actually realistic.
⚠️ Invisible overload is not just a human problem. It is a strategic risk for any organization relying on knowledge, creativity, and consistent quality. Time tracking not only provides visibility but also allows early detection of patterns and this is the foundation of any form of healthy growth.
2. Boundary erosion: when working time spills into private time
The second major risk concerns how clearly or unclearly the boundary between work and personal life is drawn. BAuA data shows that employees without time tracking work more often on weekends, are contacted more frequently in their private lives, and experience more shortened rest periods.
(BAuA 2021, see graphic on p. 12)
This erosion rarely stems from ill intent. It develops where working time is not consciously reflected on. When no one pays attention to how work spreads across the day or week, seemingly harmless patterns accumulate into significant consequences. A Saturday evening email, a quick Sunday glance at a project, a spontaneous late-night ticket — all of these feel harmless in isolation but together create a culture in which free time becomes “reserve time.”
This dynamic is particularly pronounced in home office environments. According to BAuA, boundary erosion is especially strong where working hours are not recorded: employees work longer, switch more frequently between private and professional tasks, and find it harder to end their workday intentionally.
(BAuA 2021, p. 12)
A SaaS product team we worked with demonstrated this vividly. Releases were frequently deployed on Fridays, and small hotfixes often occurred over the weekend. No one recorded this work; no one saw it. The team started each week increasingly exhausted. Only through automatic activity-based time transparency did the true amount of weekend work become visible. Today, rotating on-call schedules and clear rest periods protect the team. Learn more about automated activity tracking here: Activity Tracking in time cockpit.
⚠️ Boundary erosion is so dangerous because it initially feels good. People feel flexible, free, engaged. But on the organizational level, it creates a culture without orientation. Time tracking acts as a mirror: it shows how work actually happens, not to enforce control, but to enable clear boundaries that teams can consciously honor or intentionally stretch.
3. Less flexibility: the unexpected result of missing structure
Perhaps the most surprising finding of the BAuA study does not concern strain but autonomy. Many companies skip time tracking to promote flexibility. Yet the data shows the opposite: employees without time tracking have less influence over when they start or end work, take breaks, or schedule free time.
(BAuA 2021, p. 13)
Flexibility does not arise from a lack of structure. It arises from transparent, visible boundaries within which people can move confidently. When employees don’t know whether their week has already been intense, they hesitate to take spontaneous time off. When they don’t know how much others work, they feel pressure. When no one sees when breaks are skipped, unhealthy routines emerge.
Time tracking acts as an organizing element not as a restriction but as a foundation for autonomy. Employees can decide more consciously when to take breaks, when to leave early, and when to rest. Managers can plan realistically. Teams can collaborate more fairly.
A software team we worked with demonstrated this clearly. In theory, anyone could freely structure their time. In practice, almost no one did. The absence of visibility created the fear of appearing as though one worked less. Only once working hours and with them workloads, recovery times, and individual patterns became visible did the culture shift toward genuine, lived flexibility.
💡 In this context, the BAuA study becomes particularly meaningful: autonomy does not arise when work is invisible but when it is visible. This empowering people to engage consciously with their time.
Economic perspective: what missing time tracking really costs
Beyond cultural and organizational risks, missing time tracking has clear economic consequences. Overwork, strain, and inefficient workforce planning directly translate into costs. The following table summarizes typical scenarios, a mix of insights from time-cockpit projects and common findings in work science research:
| Risk category | Typical consequences for companies | Estimated economic impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Turnover due to overload | Higher resignation rates, knowledge loss, higher hiring costs | Total cost per turnover often 90–200% of annual salary¹ | ¹ |
| Productivity loss due to absence | Sick leave, reduced performance (presenteeism) | Productivity costs can reach several thousand euros per employee per year² | ² |
| Error rates due to exhaustion | Quality issues, rework, extended project timelines | Indirect costs difficult to quantify; studies show significant productivity losses as part of national economic damage³ | ³ |
| Lack of planning capability | Wrong staffing decisions, team overload, delays | Project delays generate direct and opportunity costs (vary by sector)⁴ | ⁴ |
| Boundary erosion & burnout risks | Higher strain, increased sick leave, reduced performance | Health-related costs and consequential losses can amount to several percent of company revenue⁵ | ⁵ |
👉 These figures highlight something often overlooked in daily operations: time is one of the most important production factors in modern knowledge work. Where time remains invisible, economic damage is inevitable.
Why modern time tracking has nothing to do with punch clocks
When companies implement time tracking today, it is not about monitoring people. Modern tools such as time cockpit help teams reflect on work, make strain visible, and preserve flexibility. They support organizations in ensuring that working time is consciously shaped rather than emerging accidentally.
Time tracking today is not about measuring performance but about shaping conditions:
- How do we want to work together?
- How do we protect our employees from overload?
- How do we create a balance between freedom and responsibility?
- How do we plan projects realistically?
Modern time tracking provides the data for these questions. Not as a controlling mechanism, but as a foundation for dialogue, development, and team health. Companies that take this step often report that the introduction was less a technical change and more a cultural improvement.
Conclusion: Without time tracking, there is no foundation for healthy, modern work
The BAuA data is clear:
Without time tracking, organizations experience more overload, more boundary erosion, and less flexibility. In other words, the very goals companies hope to achieve by skipping time tracking do not materialize.
Time tracking is therefore not the end of freedom, it is the beginning of it. Only when working hours become visible can people consciously design them. Only when strain is recognized can it be reduced. Only when teams understand how they work can they improve. Legal background and practical implementation for Austria are summarized here: Mandatory Time Tracking in Austria.
🤔 Modern companies don’t need a punch clock. They need transparency, orientation, and responsibility — and time tracking is one of the most effective tools to achieve this.
Sources
¹ Turnover costs:
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).
SHRM identifies direct and indirect costs of employee turnover typically at 50–60% of annual salary for recruitment and 90–200% including productivity loss and knowledge transfer.
Source: https://www.harbinger-consulting.com/blog/mitarbeiterfluktuation/
² Productivity costs due to absence / presenteeism:
Research shows that productivity-related costs due to absence and reduced on-site performance often amount to several thousand euros per employee per year.
Source: https://business.kaiserpermanente.org/healthy-employees/health-plan-strategies/absenteeism-costs-what-you-can-do
³ Productivity losses as an economic factor:
Analyses show that absenteeism and performance deficits (including fatigue) cause substantial national economic damage sometimes up to 2.5% of GDP.
Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48501698
⁴ Lack of planning / staffing risks:
Numerous business and project management studies show that imprecise capacity planning leads to structural project delays that cause significant costs. Clear summaries can be found in PMI and PRINCE2 literature as well as economic analyses on resource and capacity errors.
⁵ Health costs due to stress / burnout:
Studies on workplace stress and burnout show that psychological strain causes significant economic losses, often several percent of a company’s revenue.
Overview e.g. in OECD reports and occupational psychology literature.
Reference: OECD (Mental Health and Work Reports)