I've been lucky enough to have gotten on a boutique track early in my tech career; accordingly, I enjoyed my professional well being having often been catered to, and I made a principle out of minding others' well being as well. I always had something to do or someone to help, or at least a ladder to lead me to a somewhat better place than before.
However, all of the glimpses I've had into the tech industry at large more often than not would find endless swaths of powerless serfs, governed by incompetent and indifferent bossmen ganging up to hide their incontinence; and of course, outside of tech this was even worse. I think that quiet quitting is a perfectly rational strategy if that's where you're at.
At one company I worked for, a requirement in the IT department was to watch Office Space. That company was a management consulting company. Essentially, we were the IT department for the Bob & Bobs. As Machiavellian as that company was, the IT dept was different and felt like "we're in this together".
idk where all this "quiet quitting" came from. it seems to have followed on from all the anti work from home stuff.
it seems that quiet quitting is just a loaded euphemism for doing your job. when did that become such a controversial topic...feels like we are in some bizzaro timeline where people just latch onto any topic or buzzword that generates rage and clicks.
Many employers expect employees to go "above and beyond" their job description, without any consideration. So people started saying "fine, I'll just do my job to the letter". In response to that, they've created this term "quiet quitting" which places the blame on the worker's head - "How dare they just do their job? They owe me more than that!". The correct terminology is "working to rule".
"Quiet quitting" is a management-led, somewhat loaded term that describes a real phenomenon which lies entirely upon the shoulders of the organization (its management, and not an individual employee) to fix.
Harvard Business Review is merely trying to soften the blow, in hopes that an entire tier of managers does not wake up to HR invites and separation agreements!
Quiet quitting is partly about managers, but more about working beside people who make the same money as I do, but do essentially nothing. People who were hired because they fit a profile, not because they were the most qualified.
If they can do nothing and still get paid, then why are you working so hard? Again, this comes back to a management issue. I see it at my workplace, and the people I would say are working the least is management themselves.
>If they can do nothing and still get paid, then why are you working so hard?
That's exactly the question I answered with quiet quitting.
>the people I would say are working the least is management themselves.
In management's defense, they at least try to understand and care about customer attrition. But I'm not putting in any effort when a person who spends 5 months to commit 27 lines of code makes the same as me.
The central premise of this article misses the mark, at least as far I see Quiet Quitting. It's less about managers and more about the relationship between an employer and employee. We're seeing time and time again employers cutting employees loose to save the company, or doing everything they can to avoid employees getting more leverage.
> What makes the difference for those who view work as a day prison and others who feel that it gives them meaning and purpose?
What about the middle ground? I know plenty of people who enjoy their job, but they're not going the extra mile because why should they? They're happy to carry their job out to the best of their abilities within the crucial parameter that their abilities extend to the work laid out in their employment agreement with their employer - namely, hours of time and human brain/physical power in exchange for money.
There are plenty who don't really engage in work during regular working hours.
I lead a team and don't ask for overtime and try to shield my reports from such demands from above. It's not a good long term strategy, I prefer maximizing the productivity of regular work hours with clear expectations and planning.
I try to keep their plates clear of overhead so they can focus on the work. But getting real engagement is difficult for some of them. Some are really engaged and it's easy to tell. They pro actively solve their problems instead of being blocked by any little thing that happens. Others figuratively toss their hands in the air and point fingers at others as to why they couldn't finish a thing, regarding items they could have done something about.
I'm not sure I completely buy this idea that it's all managements fault. Some employees default mode, as you say, is non engagement. Maybe a golden manager they love could trigger that. But mostly they are just lazy.
Some are, indeed, a reflection of their belief that their work matters. But this group, that's "in play" to be influenced is maybe 30-50% in my experience, and is heavily dependent on hiring.
Some rare few are just workers and ignore the issues.
Sadly, for whatever reason, people who aren't doing their job also aren't being fired nearly as often as they used to be either. This fact can also contribute to a feeling of despair which leads good hard working employees to feel like giving up as well. When you're working your butt off and doing a great job, and the guy/gal next to you is constantly slacking, and somehow you're both getting paid the same, while some weasely little manager talks down to everyone all the time, it kinda makes you wanna just do the absolute bare minimum you can get away with doing.
If their coasting falls within the minimum expectations then they are still doing their job. If their coasting is sub-minimal, that means both them and their managers are not doing their job, because management is not firing them when they should be. Thus both parties are not quiet quitting.
It's also not just about firing. If they're not engaged, it's up to management to unblock them, train them, incentivize them, reprimand them, put them on PIPs, etc. It's not a one-way street.
No it isn't, it's not like bosses suddenly got worse and then this trend took off. HBR is such a rag.
Quiet quitting is the realization that if you work hard and push yourself in an employee role you're a sucker. And its depressing.
I wish I could find a team that was pushing themselves hard because they cared and getting their share of the profits. I miss feeling inspired without the spectre of being exploited.
Ultimately though the management solution to quiet quitting is pretty straightforward: raise the bar with concrete performance expectations.
> Quiet quitting is the realization that if you work hard and push yourself in an employee role you're a sucker.
People also push hard for self-development or self-interest. Learning an interesting work item can be rewarding and useful in the long run so consume the opportunity for self-growth.
That doesn't mean that "quiet quitting" (which is a slight variation on the much older concept of "work-to-rule") isn't about bad bosses.
It's been my experience that if you're burning out, 95% of the time, it's because your boss (or their bosses, somewhere up the chain) is a bad manager in one form or another, most commonly expecting too much work for the time allotted.
>> Quiet quitting is the realization that if you work hard and push yourself in an employee role you're a sucker.
Not entirely, there are bosses and orgs which genuinely reward effort, and where the cost/benefits of extra endeavour can be fairly reliably assessed.
Sadly that is of course not a universal state of affairs, or even a particularly common one. But it is out there!
Maybe there has been a general worsening of the "management class"? Maybe too many people have been getting promoted beyond their talents and interests? Poor managers who don't recognise talent and effort, or develop their teams' skills and duties, are just that, poor managers, and perhaps the corporate world has collectively taken its eye off the ball and allowed standards to slip.
And maybe this all becomes horribly normalised to the point where a good manager is somehow an exception, and over time we have now hit a tipping point where millions of otherwise good, capable, engaged employess have been pushed too far?
To be clear I think good managers are a true boon to a business - reducing attrition, increasing productivity - and leaders should be laser-focused on inculcating good, strong management practice, explicitly, not by crossing its fingers and hoping.
> because they cared and getting their share of the profits
I think many do not feel the profits are shared equitably. Furthermore, many companies, despite providing enough value to the world to make money, aren't doing something good (consider a media giant making money off ads while pushing low quality content). Working in a company like that isn't inspiring - you do what's needed, but it's hard to see yourself as making the world a better place.
I humbly recommend people in those scenarios consider looking into something more meaningful. A good place to start is this job board that focuses on companies that are trying to make the world a better place: https://80000hours.org/job-board/
> Working in a company like that isn't inspiring - you do what's needed, but it's hard to see yourself as making the world a better place.
There are enough companies that have a potential to make the world a better place. Problem: these jobs typically don't pay well. Be honest: it is simply much more comfortable to earn more money and work minimally (quiet quitting) so that the work makes you less exhausted. This way, you can even find a justification for your behavior by claiming that your company does not make the world a better place.
In my case I've joined Giving What We Can - a community of people giving at least 10% of their pre-tax income to the most cost-effective charities they can find (see GiveWell.org). Plus I help out with web dev pro-bono to some initiatives that I think are making the world better.
It's always easier to be selfish; finding noble reasons to not put in good effort at work is probably easier than recognizing you might be making those around you pick up your slack. If you're "quiet quitting" and have lots of free time at work, you may as well help the people around you (e.g. be a good mentor).
> “work environment is a place where people want to go the extra mile.”
The truth is, there's a spectrum. It runs from mis-fit employees, to bad or mis-fit managers, to lame uninspiring culture, to shite leaders. And finally, sometime a combo of all the above.
The other truth is, employees - like consumers and their wallets - have the power to vote with their feet. Staying in an unhealthy relationship and "quiet quitting" is a form of assimilation. It's enables the bad decision making and bad behaviour of others.
Life is too short to assimilate and end up an enabler. Quiet quitting is a victim mentality. Eventually that is only going to make the unhealthy relationship unhealthier. The irony of QQ is that eventually becomes part of the problem.
I don’t know, isn’t “Quiet Quitting” counterintuitive?
Isn’t doing the bare minimum harmful to you getting a new job, let alone going out on your own?
Before I founded my own business, I gave my last day job everything I had. It just never worked out. But those lessons carried me forward in my own venture.
I don’t know if “just getting by” could have made me keenly aware of the opportunities that came by doing my best as much as possible.
I could be wrong though and would love to hear from others proving just that.
Burn out is one reason to never give your all. Often you can do enough and the extra effort doesn’t provide extra utility. This goes back to the bogus educational demand that you should always work hard and do your best at school. I never bought into this and applied the metric of just doing enough to attain the goal, grade, or what have you. Doing more has much less RoI. Teachers don’t like this attitude but it’s what makes for entrepreneurs a success.
In some roles, effort put toward your job description aligns neatly with improving your personal career path. E.g. as a salesman, you want to get a lot of contacts and develop a good reputation. It's what the company wants from you, but it's also going to be a great personal asset for when you move on.
In others, they're entirely unrelated. E.g. you got hired as a code monkey and the company just wants you to crank out CRUD forms as fast as possible, it doesn't need another senior developer or architect.
I think a lot of this is just depression from the social isolation of the Covid years. I have a hunch a lot of people didn't fare too well from this.
Not finding any joy or meaning in what you do and sort of just going through the motions while ruminating about how hopeless and pointless everything is, that's fairly textbook stuff.
I would say it’s more a function of the corporation than the manager. A manager’s ability to help you is neutered by the powers that the company provides him. Your relationship with your manager might be excellent but the machine will kept you working at a pedestrian pace. This even more so when the company demands are unreasonable or unattainable.
> Notable examples have included nurses refusing to answer telephones, teachers refusing to work for free at night and during weekends and holidays, and police officers refusing to issue citations. Refusal to work overtime, travel on duty, or sign up to other tasks requiring employee assent are other manifestations of using work-to-rule as industrial action.
Basically you do what's required, no more. No (unpaid)overtime, no checking work stuff on your free time etc.
You know, the stuff we in Europe take for granted. American culture from the 50's and 60's was all "just work hard and The Company will see it you'll get that promotion!". It barely worked then, it doesn't work now - especially in medium to large corporations.
I've seen it both used as you describe (meeting expectations and doing nothing more) as well as to describe simply doing no work and waiting to be fired while collecting a paycheck for the time it takes for your employer to fire you.
This fracture has created a explosive discourse where each side calls the other side selfish idiots. If we can pivot this instead to "work-to-rule", which is less easy to fracture, then maybe we can get some actual productive discourse around unwritten and unpaid labor expectations that employers place on their employees.
I'm all for it. "quiet quitting" is a stupid name, because it simply doesn't fit the bill. You're not quitting. You're still working. Just not doing anything extra.
If by "sizable fraction" you mean "one NY Times opinion columnist" then that is a good source. Nevertheless, I'm often surprised (but I guess not really) that when the time comes to actually shrink the government, people balk at it.
A large enough number of people believe(d) it that the editorial board of one of the biggest newspapers of record deemed it worthy of publication. This isn’t some random blog link, it’s the New York Times.
Interestingly, I suspect that the people who take the most issue with "defund the police" would also not see the NY Times as such an authoritative source as you seem to.
Nevertheless, the editors published the article with a byline of an individual author. Typically if they wanted to publish an opinion intended to speak for the entire organization, they would sign it as "The Editors" or something to that effect. Even then you'd have a survey of what, a few dozen journalists?
It feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. The Minneapolis city council tried to eliminate the Minneapolis police department. The voters shut them down. When that failed, the City Council removed $8 million from the policing budget.
Leftists in power tried to actually make this happen, it wasn't just "one opinion columnist" claiming so.
To be honest, I really don't have much interest in the beliefs of the upper echelons of liberal academia, and how many actually believed in the literal definition of the movement name vs something else. From the responses here, it seems that I've somewhat unwittingly touched a nerve, though I suppose that might actually prove my point - that the movement fractured quite quickly.
I still think "lay flat" is about the best name for the phenomenon encapsulated here, which was my actual point.
And that's the least likely group of people to know anything about the lives of those most needing the police and most affected by the elimination of the police.
Put another way: people most likely to claim:
* they know "plenty of black people" because they once said hello to the black janitor
* they know "plenty of latinos" because they once hired a Mexico from the Home Depot parking lot to trim their trees
* they know "plenty of/about 'deplorables'" because they've driven through deplorable populations on the freeway or flow over deplorable states by plane
That's the same depth of understanding they have for "defund the police". Citing their articles is absolutely hilarious: akin to the above "proofs of knowledge".
The thing is, the term sounds like "just waiting to be fired" but every thought piece I've seen about it is "employees are just meeting expectations and that's bad." The first crop of articles, etc. about this were all of the "meeting expectations" variety. But folks who only glanced at headlines interpreted it the other way.
I would love it if people push back on this term and refuse to accept it. There's plenty of terms already in circulation that describe sandbagging or whatever. This is just another anti-worker trend that tries to blame workers for a rational decision to draw reasonable boundaries and refuse to do more work for the same money.
It's not Work-to-rule, though. The intent is different and actions taken under the term "Quiet Quitting" are only a subset of Work-to-rule. With Work to rule the intent is to negatively affect the business in the context of labor relations as an alternative to a strike. With quiet quitting the intent is not kill yourself by giving free labor to your employer.
I find the whole discussion about "Quiet Quitting" absolutely absurd.
"I'm hiring you to work 40 hours a week."
"I accept."
"I want you to work an extra 20 hours a week for free."
"No."
"What are you, 'Quiet Quitting' or something? You trying to go on strike?"
Are bosses today significantly worse than those of over two years ago?
Because that’s the only thing that could explain the title.
It’s more likely that QQ is the result of tight labor markets giving employees the upper hand not only in finding new jobs, but in putting less effort into existing jobs without retaliation.
“Quiet Quitting” is paradoxically defined as doing “the minimum to keep your job.” If I’m doing what I agreed, I’m working. If my boss only pays me the bare minimum stipulated in our agreement (eg. my salary or agreed rate including overtime and stipulated benefits), am I being quietly laid off?
Reminds me of the “pieces of flair” scene in Office Space.
Since when doing exactly your job and not gifting your free unpaid time is about someone being bad?
I have a feeling that his term was invented by one of the top managers at company like amazon to guilt-trip employees but it gone wrong lol
I think Covid reset the employer to employee relationship. Prior to that, the employer could demand allegiance to the company, enforce a code of behavior and expect the employee to give priority to the company's agenda and needs. That whole dynamic was ripe for change. I like the idea that the employee has more of a say.
60 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadHowever, all of the glimpses I've had into the tech industry at large more often than not would find endless swaths of powerless serfs, governed by incompetent and indifferent bossmen ganging up to hide their incontinence; and of course, outside of tech this was even worse. I think that quiet quitting is a perfectly rational strategy if that's where you're at.
it seems that quiet quitting is just a loaded euphemism for doing your job. when did that become such a controversial topic...feels like we are in some bizzaro timeline where people just latch onto any topic or buzzword that generates rage and clicks.
Harvard Business Review is merely trying to soften the blow, in hopes that an entire tier of managers does not wake up to HR invites and separation agreements!
That's exactly the question I answered with quiet quitting.
>the people I would say are working the least is management themselves.
In management's defense, they at least try to understand and care about customer attrition. But I'm not putting in any effort when a person who spends 5 months to commit 27 lines of code makes the same as me.
> What makes the difference for those who view work as a day prison and others who feel that it gives them meaning and purpose?
What about the middle ground? I know plenty of people who enjoy their job, but they're not going the extra mile because why should they? They're happy to carry their job out to the best of their abilities within the crucial parameter that their abilities extend to the work laid out in their employment agreement with their employer - namely, hours of time and human brain/physical power in exchange for money.
I lead a team and don't ask for overtime and try to shield my reports from such demands from above. It's not a good long term strategy, I prefer maximizing the productivity of regular work hours with clear expectations and planning.
I try to keep their plates clear of overhead so they can focus on the work. But getting real engagement is difficult for some of them. Some are really engaged and it's easy to tell. They pro actively solve their problems instead of being blocked by any little thing that happens. Others figuratively toss their hands in the air and point fingers at others as to why they couldn't finish a thing, regarding items they could have done something about.
I'm not sure I completely buy this idea that it's all managements fault. Some employees default mode, as you say, is non engagement. Maybe a golden manager they love could trigger that. But mostly they are just lazy.
Some are, indeed, a reflection of their belief that their work matters. But this group, that's "in play" to be influenced is maybe 30-50% in my experience, and is heavily dependent on hiring.
Some rare few are just workers and ignore the issues.
It's also not just about firing. If they're not engaged, it's up to management to unblock them, train them, incentivize them, reprimand them, put them on PIPs, etc. It's not a one-way street.
Quiet quitting is the realization that if you work hard and push yourself in an employee role you're a sucker. And its depressing.
I wish I could find a team that was pushing themselves hard because they cared and getting their share of the profits. I miss feeling inspired without the spectre of being exploited.
Ultimately though the management solution to quiet quitting is pretty straightforward: raise the bar with concrete performance expectations.
People also push hard for self-development or self-interest. Learning an interesting work item can be rewarding and useful in the long run so consume the opportunity for self-growth.
It's been my experience that if you're burning out, 95% of the time, it's because your boss (or their bosses, somewhere up the chain) is a bad manager in one form or another, most commonly expecting too much work for the time allotted.
Not entirely, there are bosses and orgs which genuinely reward effort, and where the cost/benefits of extra endeavour can be fairly reliably assessed.
Sadly that is of course not a universal state of affairs, or even a particularly common one. But it is out there!
Maybe there has been a general worsening of the "management class"? Maybe too many people have been getting promoted beyond their talents and interests? Poor managers who don't recognise talent and effort, or develop their teams' skills and duties, are just that, poor managers, and perhaps the corporate world has collectively taken its eye off the ball and allowed standards to slip.
And maybe this all becomes horribly normalised to the point where a good manager is somehow an exception, and over time we have now hit a tipping point where millions of otherwise good, capable, engaged employess have been pushed too far?
To be clear I think good managers are a true boon to a business - reducing attrition, increasing productivity - and leaders should be laser-focused on inculcating good, strong management practice, explicitly, not by crossing its fingers and hoping.
I think many do not feel the profits are shared equitably. Furthermore, many companies, despite providing enough value to the world to make money, aren't doing something good (consider a media giant making money off ads while pushing low quality content). Working in a company like that isn't inspiring - you do what's needed, but it's hard to see yourself as making the world a better place.
I humbly recommend people in those scenarios consider looking into something more meaningful. A good place to start is this job board that focuses on companies that are trying to make the world a better place: https://80000hours.org/job-board/
There are enough companies that have a potential to make the world a better place. Problem: these jobs typically don't pay well. Be honest: it is simply much more comfortable to earn more money and work minimally (quiet quitting) so that the work makes you less exhausted. This way, you can even find a justification for your behavior by claiming that your company does not make the world a better place.
It's always easier to be selfish; finding noble reasons to not put in good effort at work is probably easier than recognizing you might be making those around you pick up your slack. If you're "quiet quitting" and have lots of free time at work, you may as well help the people around you (e.g. be a good mentor).
One does the absolute minimum. The other consistently goes above and beyond.
Both are fast food workers. All else being equal, I would much rather hire a former Chick-fil-A worker then just about any fast food worker.
I have a list of former co-workers people that know they can call me up an I will either hire them or give them glowing recommendations.
Attitude is the major drive.
The truth is, there's a spectrum. It runs from mis-fit employees, to bad or mis-fit managers, to lame uninspiring culture, to shite leaders. And finally, sometime a combo of all the above.
The other truth is, employees - like consumers and their wallets - have the power to vote with their feet. Staying in an unhealthy relationship and "quiet quitting" is a form of assimilation. It's enables the bad decision making and bad behaviour of others.
Life is too short to assimilate and end up an enabler. Quiet quitting is a victim mentality. Eventually that is only going to make the unhealthy relationship unhealthier. The irony of QQ is that eventually becomes part of the problem.
Before I founded my own business, I gave my last day job everything I had. It just never worked out. But those lessons carried me forward in my own venture.
I don’t know if “just getting by” could have made me keenly aware of the opportunities that came by doing my best as much as possible.
I could be wrong though and would love to hear from others proving just that.
In some roles, effort put toward your job description aligns neatly with improving your personal career path. E.g. as a salesman, you want to get a lot of contacts and develop a good reputation. It's what the company wants from you, but it's also going to be a great personal asset for when you move on.
In others, they're entirely unrelated. E.g. you got hired as a code monkey and the company just wants you to crank out CRUD forms as fast as possible, it doesn't need another senior developer or architect.
Not finding any joy or meaning in what you do and sort of just going through the motions while ruminating about how hopeless and pointless everything is, that's fairly textbook stuff.
> Notable examples have included nurses refusing to answer telephones, teachers refusing to work for free at night and during weekends and holidays, and police officers refusing to issue citations. Refusal to work overtime, travel on duty, or sign up to other tasks requiring employee assent are other manifestations of using work-to-rule as industrial action.
Basically you do what's required, no more. No (unpaid)overtime, no checking work stuff on your free time etc.
You know, the stuff we in Europe take for granted. American culture from the 50's and 60's was all "just work hard and The Company will see it you'll get that promotion!". It barely worked then, it doesn't work now - especially in medium to large corporations.
I've seen it both used as you describe (meeting expectations and doing nothing more) as well as to describe simply doing no work and waiting to be fired while collecting a paycheck for the time it takes for your employer to fire you.
This fracture has created a explosive discourse where each side calls the other side selfish idiots. If we can pivot this instead to "work-to-rule", which is less easy to fracture, then maybe we can get some actual productive discourse around unwritten and unpaid labor expectations that employers place on their employees.
I think the Tang Ping movement in China really nailed it - lay flat probably captures the feeling best.
Nevertheless, the editors published the article with a byline of an individual author. Typically if they wanted to publish an opinion intended to speak for the entire organization, they would sign it as "The Editors" or something to that effect. Even then you'd have a survey of what, a few dozen journalists?
Leftists in power tried to actually make this happen, it wasn't just "one opinion columnist" claiming so.
Think Columbia University faculty and students in NYC, not online trolls.
https://cccct.law.columbia.edu/content/abolition-practicum
https://socialwork.columbia.edu/student-experience/student-l...
https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/abolition1313/3-13-abolish-th...
Just google 'police abolition' + 'columbia' or 'berkeley' or any of the top liberal arts colleges that have a left ideological bent
I still think "lay flat" is about the best name for the phenomenon encapsulated here, which was my actual point.
Put another way: people most likely to claim:
* they know "plenty of black people" because they once said hello to the black janitor
* they know "plenty of latinos" because they once hired a Mexico from the Home Depot parking lot to trim their trees
* they know "plenty of/about 'deplorables'" because they've driven through deplorable populations on the freeway or flow over deplorable states by plane
That's the same depth of understanding they have for "defund the police". Citing their articles is absolutely hilarious: akin to the above "proofs of knowledge".
I would love it if people push back on this term and refuse to accept it. There's plenty of terms already in circulation that describe sandbagging or whatever. This is just another anti-worker trend that tries to blame workers for a rational decision to draw reasonable boundaries and refuse to do more work for the same money.
That's more like "rest-and-vest."
I find the whole discussion about "Quiet Quitting" absolutely absurd. "I'm hiring you to work 40 hours a week." "I accept." "I want you to work an extra 20 hours a week for free." "No." "What are you, 'Quiet Quitting' or something? You trying to go on strike?"
Reminds me of the “pieces of flair” scene in Office Space.
You mean not doing free labour?