Quiet quitting: You always had workers who did 9-5 but it's a creeping malaise
irishtimes.com
irishtimes.com
The fact that not doing additional free work is framed as "quitting" is both ridiculous and sad.
>Quiet quitters are hard to handle, both on the job and in performance reviews, because they continue to complete their assigned workload to the same (often high) standard, giving their managers an uneasy feeling but nothing specific to complain about.
Why would there be anything to complain about if the work someone is assigned is completed on time and to a high standard? I don't understand.
>“But it’s hard to deal with while keeping everyone else engaged. In particular it’s a challenge to ensure that the first job employees on the team don’t assume this behaviour is the norm.
God forbid other team members start to respect their own time rather than giving it to their employer for free.
Yeah, that's something I thought was strange in the article. My understanding of quiet quitting was that you did the bare minimum to not get fired, not "not going above and beyond".
Of course the article’s definition works better if you want to paint all workers as lazy mooches who are lucky for every day they’re not fired.
> “Quiet quitting” first hit the internet in March 2022 when a Gen-X career coach and employment influencer named Brian Creely used the phrase when discussing an Insider article about employees “coasting” at work. After that, the phrase went viral on TikTok, particularly among the app’s younger, Gen-Z-dominated user base.
https://www.thestreet.com/dictionary/quiet-quitting
I think the term shifted because one of the early descriptions was "only doing what you're paid for", which can be interpreted as either "coasting" or "restricting to 9-to-5".
That or they're actively trying to shift it to stop people from realizing coasting is a thing.
I feel it would be a mistake to try to analyze just one of those without the other.
What the “bar for the role” gap is really is the zone you work in when you don’t care about getting ahead. Getting ahead has never been mandatory, at least post the first few years at work (often the first few levels in most corporations have an expiry date you need to matriculate through or be let go). Once you’re in a terminal role it’s supposed to be ok to stay there and not put in that extra to get ahead. It should be ok for people to not always be striving and reaching higher and higher. Often other things in life become more important - children, last years with parents, your maker hobby. That’s ok.
What employees get:
> I still have my KPIs to meet so I can only be understanding up to a point. I actively encourage my team to avail of our employee assistance programmes and I try to lead by example by doing a relaxation class at lunchtime (provided on-site) or going outside to get some air if it’s not lashing down. “I also keep back some of my budget to spend on small rewards like sweet treats when everyone is in the office, buying eggs at Easter or standing them the occasional lunch.
Employees are generally willing to go above and beyond if employers are willing to go above and beyond--extra pay for the extra effort.
I think people are waking up to the reality that money has diminishing returns beyond a certain point. Owning a house, a car and taking vacations can improve your life. But owning a bigger house, more expensive car and luxury vacations gets old very quick (and doesn’t make one more “happy”).
What we’re really craving at that point is a sense of connection with others and a feeling of belonging. Having an external impact. Believing in and contributing to something beyond ourselves. So no amount of excessive self-indulgence/consumption can fill that void.
So people are now willing to trade that extra monetary reward for their time back to do that and more.
It’s the revelation they’re unlikely to ever have that kind of money. That working harder doesn’t do any good, no matter what they’re told, it will always be out of reach.
Why should they bother to work extra to win a rigged game when the prize is money that won’t get them ahead in any way?
“We can no longer overwork and underpay the help. What do?”
If that happened, would they rate everyone “5/5 - leading performance/goes above and beyond” in performance reviews?
Even if they did, they wouldn’t hesitate to lay them off if that helps them improve quarterly earnings (and lets the CEO keep their multi million $ stock bonus).
Not only had companies been pushing people to work harder for less, the pandemic gave them the opportunity to disparage those who weren’t happy about it!
If the KPI was set under the assumption that employees were going to work more than they are contractually required to, then that's not the employees problem. That's the fault of whoever set the KPI. They wrote a check they can't cash, and THEY should be the one to take the fall.
Either lower the KPI, or hire more and pay more so you have the resources to achieve them.
Funny how they can view the employees not doing extra labor as a problem. Meanwhile the management is effectively admitting incompetence. Isn't that a bigger problem?
Nah, it's a lot easier to just overwork people until the good ones leave and the stuck people burn out, then fire them when you miss targets and then fire the line managers when you subsequently miss targets again because the team turned over.
Since then I have been firmly in the bare-minimum camp. Call it quiet quitting if you want. I get my job done but I take my sweet time. I try to meet deadlines but I don't work extra hours if they're at risk. I feel poorly treated so I responded in kind.
This is the expiration date for any job. You hit the 2 year mark you need to be out or actively looking. The internal raise has never met inflation or market demand.
Tightening contractual relationships to avoid leaving money on the table.
Fighting against the epidemic of "quiet firing."
This "9-5 engaged worker" is certainly a new one on me
So why should things go back to the way they were? Is it because that is the natural and righteous order of things under heaven, that employers pay for 40 hours of work a week but their employees will give them 50, 60, or 80 hours? What is it about such quietly abusive arrangements that makes them “professional”... or fair, for that matter?
The idea that doing more than the 9-to-5 is “counterbalanced by social capital, wellbeing and career success” is kind of analogous to the idea that artists should be thankful when they are paid in “exposure” instead of money. Also, the idea that small rewards such as candy are sufficient to recognize employee’s large sacrificies is cheap and insulting. Don’t buy Easter eggs, silly employers, but rather, pay toward employee’s nest eggs. Or just pay overtime rates for the overtime you’re requiring from your employees, you KPI-monging cheapskates!
It didn't take a pandemic for quiet firing to become the de facto standard. That's just "how business works."
Management-created crises, allegedly to "inspire the troops," may be seen as a form of quiet firing. And not just for the lackluster employees who fail to pitch in, but even for the rank and file whose morale can be impacted.
Creating too many tasks to possibly accomplish, another inspirational management tactic, can sometimes backfire in a similar fashion.
If I hire an employee and he completes their assigned workload to a high standard, how is he not an excellent employee?
At 48 I'm on the edge of this group. I look at my cohort outside tech and the words "failure" spring to mind.
I look at my cohort in tech, who are pulling in great money, and still trying to quite quit. IF you want that 200k a year tech gig you're going to have to eat some shit to get there and stay there.
What a bunch of absolute psychopaths.
Forty hours already feels excessive. I’m not gonna spend more time rotting in front of a screen for a pay bump.
It seems a lot of people interpret this is meaning, for example, not working an hour late on occasion.
I got the impression it also means things like, say, you suspect a problem with instructions you were given, but you're not going to bother to investigate or mention it to anyone, since that would be more effort, you just don't care, and your butt is covered if you just follow instructions.
This latter example -- at least speaking up if you notice a problem -- could arguably be considered part of the job. And it avoids conflating the issue with "hourly job" or "work hours" concerns that lead to responses like it's only about "if you want more work, then pay more money".