The Art of ‘Quiet Quitting’ in Employee Management

Quiet quitting, reverse hustle, work-life integration, acting your wage, working at work, morale-adjusted productivity – these are the different terms for the concept that has taken the business world by storm.  

Reintroduced to millions by an engineer on TikTok, the idea of quiet quitting is now seen as a further residual impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some say it is the next stage of the Great Resignation.  

As leaders, how do you identify quiet quitters? How do you manage them to avoid major negative impacts on your business? Is quiet quitting a threat to organizational success? 

We took these questions and more to our Business Buzz Outlook session with Ira S. Wolfe to uncover his insights on quiet quitting and how leaders can best manage this situation with their employees.  

   

Quiet Quitting Looks Different to Everyone 

 

Whether you’re the employer or employee, the definition of quiet quitting can vary. From a manager’s perspective, it can have a negative connotation of employees quitting on the job and not taking the initiative to hide it. This is similar to the idea of presenteeism, where people show up and don’t do their jobs at all or only do as little as possible. 

On the hand, quiet quitting from an employee’s perspective is giving 100% at the job they were hired for, not more or less. They are showing up but not giving 110% of their performance for just 100% of the pay. 

Ira noted the high level of burnout and overwork that people are experiencing since the pandemic. Coupled with more options being available, people are quitting. They’re also reflecting and evaluating their lives and trying to reset.  

“It was really people just trying to set boundaries, healthy boundaries, for themselves. They did take care of themselves, and when employers are short-handed, they didn’t like that,” said Ira.  

He added that the definition with the best intention is that people are setting healthy boundaries. It doesn’t mean they are trying to get away with just 70% of the work for 100% of the pay. Instead, they are willing to do the work but they’re also going to set boundaries.  

Ultimately, the pandemic prompted employees to reflect on the “hustle culture” that they were living before the lockdowns forced them to slow down. They realize they want more out of live.  

Another major transition that came with the pandemic is that many baby boomers left the workforce – whether due to retirement or COVID-deaths. This means millennials and Gen Z, who have a different work attitude, now make up the greatest proportion of the workforce. 

 

“Baby boomers live to work, younger generations work to live,”

– Ira S. Wolfe 

 

Another point he made was that many quiet quitters tend to have multiple jobs. So, it’s not that they are neglecting their work so much as they have to leave to do other things – whether that’s unpaid labor like caregiving or a second job.  

“They’re not quitting. They’re just not willing to give you that extra push, they’re not willing to do it for you for the same level of pay,” he stressed.  

However, he added that it’s not always about pay. Sometimes it’s a feeling of disrespect or detachment from their leaders that causes them to be less likely to invest more in work. 

 

Employers Must Change Their Mindset?

 

When asked if there’s a positive spin to quiet quitting, Ira responded that this is a chance for reflection. Given that many organizations are experiencing a skilled labor shortage while challenged by an aging population and declining working-age population, they have to pivot.  

 

“We should be taking care of people and we shouldn’t be burning them out,”

– Ira S. Wolfe 

 

Citing the World Health Organization’s classification of burnout as a legitimate mental health condition as a result of people putting in more than 100% at work, Ira stressed that living to work is not the best thing for humans or for the planet at large.  

 

What can employers do? 

 

With all that in mind, how can employers make this work for them? Ira suggests simply starting a conversation.  

Though this isn’t a fix for a complex problem, it is a good place to start. He encouraged leaders to check in on their team members, ask them how they’re doing and have conversations about what inspires them and what they want out of life. This is especially pertinent for younger employees who are more willing to talk about these things.  

Ira also pointed out that employers focus on experience and education when hiring someone, but people are actually looking to make a difference with their work. They want to work for an organization that allows them to feel like they belong to a cause and a community. Yet, those aren’t the conversations that hiring managers have with candidates.  

“It’s simple. Just have a conversation with your employees,” Ira said.  

How Much Should Employers Monitor? 

On the question of whether monitoring employee performance could be effective in solving the issue of a lack of employee engagement, Ira says trust should be the foundation. Monitoring can be beneficial to all parties but it can also seem like too much or overbearing if there is a lack of trust between employees and employers. He described it as a George Orwell dystopic culture.  

 

“When employers are [monitoring employees] to squeeze out every bit of performance, that to me is where it breaks down because there’s a lack of trust”

– Ira S. Wolfe 

 

However, a lack of monitoring means a lack of data on how productive or effective employees and processes are. Ira stressed that when monitoring is done properly with good intentions and the right analytics, it can also be beneficial in helping everyone set healthy boundaries.  

For that to happen, employees must be able to trust that they are not being monitored just because their leaders don’t trust them to be working.  

“I don’t think it’s as much of a problem of invasion of privacy and over-surveillance as it is a lack of trust, which needs to be addressed,” he stressed.  

Leaders should have open conversations with their employees about the kind of monitoring that is being done and how it can benefit the whole organization. It must be made clear that employees are not being taken advantage of and that managers do care about their teams. Still, this is an uphill climb. 

Ira said: “We are entering this level of transparency and authenticity and trust, and the importance of trust in the workplace. But organizations have a long way to go, managers have a long way to go on how not only to build that.” 

Ira added that companies that have cultivated a safe space can have honest conversations with their employees about surveillance – from the importance and benefits to figuring out when it is overstepping.   

“Very few organizations have that and very few managers have been trained, mentored, or coached on how to achieve that,” he explained.  

It’s all about healthy boundaries 

When asked whether people who are passionate at work are at a higher risk of overworking, Ira made a distinction between good and bad stress.  

“When people are passionate, when they feel that they’re making a difference and they belong to a community, they will overwork but it’s not stressful,” he elaborated. 

“It’s a healthy level of stress that we’re excited, we’re inspired, we put effort into it”.  

The important thing is to create boundaries around work and change the mindset that an 80-hour work week is a ‘badge of honor’.