Quiet Quitting: New Label, Old Problem

Quiet quitting has been in the news a lot recently123. According to the Society of Human Resource Management, 51% of HR professionals are concerned with quiet quitting, and 72% have witnessed it among young workers. Additionally, Gallup found that at least 50% of the workforce is made of quiet quitters. If you have been paying attention to any of these reports, you would think this is a new trend. However, the only thing new about quiet quitting is the name.

A Gallup study conducted in 2020 found that 54% of the workforce was disengaged, and their definition of disengagement is the same as quiet quitting:

"Not engaged employees typically show up to work and contribute the minimum effort required. They're also on the lookout for better employment opportunities and will quickly leave their company for a slightly better offer."

Even in the early 2000s, it was estimated that only 30% of the global workforce was engaged at work.

Disengaged workers are estimated to cost the world $7.8 trillion, approximately 11% of the global gross domestic product. This cost is due, in part, to the fact that disengaged workers are less productive and less committed to the company. By increasing engagement, not only can organizations reduce attrition, but an engaged workforce performs their role better, encourages more creativity among employees resulting in better problem-solving and greater innovation, may reduce counterproductive behavior, and increases an employee's investment in their job.

Focusing on engagement is not only beneficial to the employer. Engaged employees are often more resilient and capable of handling job stressors. Moreover, engagement increases the psychological well-being of employees and protects against employee burnout. So disengagement, or quiet quitting, is hurting everyone.

It is great that there is a focus on disengaged workers. If the media needs to slap a new label on it to get employers and the public to take it seriously, then so be it. Keeping the topic alive in public discourse is a net positive, assuming people will do something about it. However, that is a key issue; there is a lot of discussion around the phenomenon, but no one is talking about what can be done about it. It is not an easy issue to tackle, but it is possible to do something.

Leaders are responsible for approximately 70% of an employee's engagement and can increase an employee's resilience. There are many effective leadership styles (i.e., transformational, consultative, empowering, etc.), but all effective styles have one thing in common, positive interpersonal relationships. Therefore, leaders should aim to develop a genuine rapport with their employees. Additionally, being present, effectively communicating, providing autonomy (when appropriate), and allowing employees to engage in non-work-related activities while on the clock can all help increase engagement.

It is important to remember that you cannot take a one size fits all approach to engagement. Every person is different, every culture is different, and every business has different needs. Leaders must consider all these factors when developing an engagement strategy, or it will likely fail. A pizza party or bonus will not increase engagement for most people. It will take hard work and empathetic leaders, but it will be worth it in the end.