Quiet Quitting — What Does It Really Mean?

“Quiet quitting” describes the controversial movement of employees reclaiming their work (and home!) lives. And the definition varies:

To some, it’s the totally reasonable act of doing what they were hired to do, what’s in their job description, and what’s expected of them in their role. It’s setting healthy boundaries, and not taking on additional work.

To others, it means not going above and beyond, not subscribing to hustle culture, not letting work be your whole life, and not accepting additional work without additional pay.

Some use the term to describe mentally checking out from work, and others refer to it as a way to work without committing emotional energy to the job. I’ve even heard the word “lazy” thrown around.

Here’s our take:

Are we really surprised that employees are taking their lives back because they’re burnt out?

That they are finally setting healthy boundaries because they’ve experienced different levels of trauma and abuse at work that have caused real damage?

That they’ve dedicated so much of their life to work that their own self interest and confidence has dwindled over time because of a toxic leader or workplace culture?

Our entire mission is: social responsibility at work. Creating workplace cultures that send home happier, healthier humans who can make a difference in their communities.

There’s a lack of awareness around how social responsibility at work benefits businesses too, not just employees. Implementing sustainable work habits that benefit people — also benefit the business.

The reason why “quiet quitting” is so controversial is because it confronts work paradigms we’ve referred to for years. Things like employee engagement, for example.

And we get the fear. Employers are fearful that if employees become disengaged that performance will decline, outputs will slow, and resources will be wasted.

These are valid fears. And certainly the label, “quiet quitting” isn’t helping to socialize the phenomenon as something beneficial.

A more accurate way to describe this phenomenon would be:

WHEN YOU ADOPT THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CREATING EMPLOYEES THAT GO HOME HAPPY AND CREATE IMPACT IN THEIR COMMUNITIES,  BETTER OUTCOMES ARE CREATED — AT EVERY LEVEL.

This movement is calling in a modern approach to addressing the problems that prevent adoption of “quite quitting”.

In today’s working world, employers will have to get past the paradigm that employees are loyal and engaged to them. The Best Workplaces of 2030 are changing minds and hearts about what work means.

Instead of arguing about what Quiet Quitting really means, what we should be focused on is:

- creating better leaders and holding them accountable.

- assessing employee experience and culture, not employee engagement because, no Gallup, I don’t “have a best friend at work” and that’s okay.

- being clear, not cryptic around norms, expectations and performance. And, empowering people to reach those expectations on their own terms.

Quiet quitting isn’t a hall pass to doing the bare minimum. It’s bringing to light issues that have harmed the workplace for years: hustle, work abuse, toxic loyalty, and capitalism. And it’s getting us to question what really makes for productive workplaces, happy humans, and successful businesses.

The timing of this viral concept is uncanny. Businesses are sitting down to do their strategic planning for the upcoming year, and I have no doubt that Quiet Quitting has its own agenda line-item. So, I ask you: Are you dedicating resources to culture development?

If you’re not, you should be.

If you are, we invite you to reach out about how our solutions might be able to help you operationalize culture change.

What is your view on “quiet quitting”, and do you think it’s missing the mark?