Quit calling it quiet quitting

It may be called quiet quitting, but there’s been an awful lot of noise about it lately. According to proponents of the theory, workplaces are afflicted with an epidemic of unenthusiastic employees who do only the bare minimum required to keep their job, never work extra hours and put little effort into their assigned tasks.

Some companies are trying to address the issue, and some are doing so very poorly. Hundreds of Twitter employees resigned rather than pledge loyalty to Musk’s call for a “hardcore” work environment, for instance. That’s after Twitter laid off half its workforce.

Given that Musk previously gave Tesla employees an ultimatum to return to the office or be fired, and he tried to repeat the same stunt at Twitter, it seems that he thinks home working is also a form of quiet quitting incompatible with working hard. Apparently, Jacob Rees Mogg would agree.  He’s no fan of flexible hours and once stated that working from home was “not a serious attitude to work.”

By that definition, a number of unserious companies seem to be achieving a lot in the world – from Zapier to Nationwide and Shopify. And according to CIPD, the evidence simply doesn’t support the idea that remote working is unproductive.

So if fears around home working are void, what about quiet quitting concerns? Is it the same needless noise or a cautionary tale? Or is it a sign of something else?

What is a reasonable expectation to have of your people?

Let’s take a different perspective on what quiet quitting’s proponents say their delinquent employees are doing. What it boils down to is that many employees simply do their allotted time. By calling those who don’t go the extra mile “quiet quitters”, business leaders risk demonising workers who simply fulfil their contractual obligations.

In any workforce, there will be employees who…

1. Are on the cusp of leaving the company completely – these, potentially, are real quitters.
2. Just do what they’re asked and go home – and who are being unfairly labelled as quitters.
3. Want to offer a lot more but are busy outside of work with family and other obligations.
4. Are willing to burn the candle at both ends and regularly clock off long after their contracted hours are completed.

None of those options is wrong per se. If there is an expectation that people will work longer hours and take on unpaid tasks then, by definition, it’s no longer going above and beyond the call of duty. Instead it’s just a poorly communicated and poorly recompensed duty. And employees might try to fulfil it until burnout and fatigue pushes them into ill health or they apply for work elsewhere.

One person’s quiet quitter is another’s good worker who just soldiers on and does the job they’re paid to do. If it isn’t in their contract, and it’s not a measurable indication of performance (a KPI), it shouldn’t be a prerequisite.

Part of the problem lies in unreasonable managerial expectations that grew during the pandemic. The willingness of workers to pull together, put all hands to the pumps, and work extra hard to keep their companies afloat set ridiculous precedents for what employees were expected to do. And now some employers anticipate that level of commitment as a matter of course.

Burnout is not a company requirement

If people are going to go above and beyond contractual job responsibilities and KPIs, if you want a workplace culture where everyone stretches themselves to the limit, then it needs to be spelled out and properly rewarded. You can’t just expect that privilege – there needs to be some form of incentivisation.

But is that company culture best for business? One where no one wants to be the first to leave the office at the end of the day and vie with each other to be last out of the door? On the surface, it might seem good for a business to have a team that dedicated – but is it actually dedication, people pleasing, career ambition, or a combination of them all?

In 2021/22 stress, depression and anxiety accounted for 55% of all working days lost due to work-related ill health. You need your team strong, fit and healthy, not burnt out and at their wits end.

Are we getting time and performance management confused?

Frequently, businesses with concerns about quiet quitting have a culture issue. In essence, it boils down to a lack of trust. In other words, quiet quitting reflects an employer problem rather than an employee problem.

Flexible working is sometimes unjustly branded as a proponent of quiet quitting. But if a performance review reveals that an employee is hitting their targets, does it matter how many hours they work or when and where they do it?

If a worker isn’t hitting their targets, it’s a performance management issue, not a quiet quitting one. In today’s new world of work, there’s no reason to be at your desk or on the production line constantly.

A flexible future is dawning – don’t get left in the dark

People want to take back control of their wellbeing. In the post-pandemic world, that means flexible working. A brighter and better way of working is evolving where people can choose a work pattern that fits in with the rest of their life. It may be that in the future, people won’t have set hours, only targets and KPIs.

The whole notion of quiet quitting puts unnecessary pressure on people. It would be great if the concept just quietly disappeared. A business full of highly ambitious wannabe superstars is not sustainable, you need the regulars too who turn up every day and simply get their job done.

If you’d like to know more about ways Amba can help you boost retention, get in touch.

Let’s chat