It’s almost impossible to avoid the phrase “quiet quitting” right now, and there are nearly as many takes on the phrase as there are articles about it. On one side, some pundits and employers assume that it means workers are “lazy” or “slacking off,” whereas the “anti-work” extreme on the other end of the spectrum suggests that bad employer behavior is entirely responsible for employee disengagement.
In reality, the trend is much older and more nuanced than most “hot takes” suggest. And like most issues around employee experience and engagement, understanding the issues around “quiet quitting” requires a thoughtful and individualized approach.
Here are three ways to approach “quiet quitting” that may help you understand what’s happening within your organization:
1. Define Your Terms
One significant challenge to addressing “quiet quitting” is understanding what the term means. Rather than assuming that employees are just “slacking off” or taking advantage of their employers, take the time to understand how the people inside your organization define the term.
Most recent definitions of “quiet quitting” seem to fall into three broad categories:
1) “Slacker” culture: This definition assumes that employees are showing up to work and doing the bare minimum while there. While some employees certainly fall into this category, the assumption that all employees are slacking off is highly inaccurate. Leaders who assume that quiet quitting is equivalent to slacking are missing the bulk of the conversation.
2) “Coasting culture”: While some workers are using the term to describe getting away with the bare minimum of effort (or even less), many more actually mean simply scaling back. Sona Movsesian, assistant to Conan O’Brien for 13 years, prioritizes her work-life balance and describes herself as “mediocre.” Movsesian represents a philosophy that gets work done but doesn’t go above and beyond.
3) “Anti-hustle” culture: Much of the quiet quitting trend is a backlash against “hustle culture.” After two or more years of working from home while handling childcare and other family obligations, workers are burned out and tired, and they’re pursuing a better work-life balance while still getting their jobs done. These people are still dedicated to their roles and duties; they just want to make room for other things in their lives. For these people, “quiet quitting” simply means scaling back to 40 hours per week or putting self-care and work-life balance first.
It's worth taking the time to survey employees to gauge engagement and productivity to see if quiet quitting means slacking off or just taking better care of oneself.
2. Understand Employee Needs
Every employee has three human needs: to feel liked, competent, and independent. When employees lack one or more of these needs in their jobs, “quiet quitting” becomes more appealing. Movsesian puts it well when she says, “I think that a lot of these people who are 'quietly quitting' are saying, 'I don't need to kill myself for this job,' especially if they're not feeling respect or not feeling like they're properly compensated, or they're feeling like they're not being listened to.”
When employees start showing up physically but not mentally, or when productivity begins to slide, it’s worth asking which of these needs is not being met. Is there a culture of micromanagement that’s keeping employees from being able to feel independent and competent? Is there a lack of connection or a distrustful environment that’s contributing to employees feeling unlikeable? Addressing some of these underlying cultural issues could help better meet the human needs all employees have.
3. Consider Whether “Quiet Firing” is at Work
As articles about “quiet quitting” proliferated, others started to discuss the other side: “quiet firing.” Recruiting professional Bonnie Dilber describes “quiet firing” as management practices contributing to employees feeling “incompetent, isolated, and unappreciated.” She includes practices such as lack of feedback or praise, one-on-ones that are frequently canceled or shifted, not being invited to participate in special projects or stretch assignments, and lack of conversation about career trajectory. “Instead of worrying about ‘quiet quitting,’” she writes, “I'd encourage companies to look at their management practices and identify places where people are being ‘quiet fired’ by poor managers who don't want to do the work to support, train, and coach their teams.”
It's impossible to discuss a lack of employee engagement that leads to quiet quitting without also discussing management practices that may contribute to the trend. If employees were once engaged and excited about work but now seem to be slacking, what changed in management? If turnover is consistently high, can anyone point to a management practice that might contribute to it? Are there employee surveys or reviews that can shed light on management practices that contribute to a lack of engagement?
Much of the conversation around quiet quitting and quiet firing is being conducted where it may do the least good—in media circles, on social media, and in Reddit groups. For leaders genuinely concerned about whether their employees are “quietly quitting,” it’s time to open the conversation and engage in honest discussions about company culture and work commitments. When leaders welcome the conversation with employees, they will be far more likely to find common ground and improve the employee experience.
Self-check:
- Is there a discussion in your organization among employees and leaders about “quiet quitting”? If not, what is one thing you can do to encourage conversation?
- Are you making regular use of employee satisfaction surveys? If so, are you including questions about work-life balance and burnout?
- What is one practice you could adopt to improve one of the three human needs among your direct reports?