Quiet Quitting Is About Bad Bosses, Not Bad Employees

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 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?"

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/

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.

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.

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.