Share This Article:
Social media came alive recently with a discussion of the concept of quiet quitting. For those of you unfamiliar with the topic, it is a process of withdrawal, resignation, and acquiescence. It is an approach to employment said to be popular with the younger generations. They are in search, they say, of work-life balance. They perceive the world in which they "work to live," rather than "live to work," to take a page from Noel Gallagher.
As the discussion persisted, it spread to outlets like National Public Radio, which tied this evolution in part to the pandemic and its impact on the "workplace culture." Gallup, a polling organization, quickly concluded that the quiet quitters are "at least 50% of the American workforce." Its coverage also concludes the trend is currently increased but seems suggestive that the concept is hardly new.
Those who want a balanced lifestyle are in the majority? Hardly breaking news. Those who are disenfranchised at work, unmotivated, disappointed, disenchanted, or otherwise not engaged are the majority? Sorry, not news. Management is a challenge, people can be hard to figure out, and inspiration is elusive? So not news. The headlines can be proclamations and excitements, but the news is not always news. Sometimes, it is just the facts and unless the facts are changed they are hardly news.
In fact, the Los Angeles Times made a point on the novelty question. It proclaimed that "Gen Z didn't coin 'quiet quitting' - Gen X did." With reference to a hilarious Hollywood tribute to the concept, it decries any claim of recency. See Office Space, (20th Century, 1999). You know you are aging when the news foists you upon a pop-culture reference that is a quarter of a century past. There was also an expose of a Hollywood assistant who has "been 'quiet quitting' for over a decade," and who advises that "it's OK to be mediocre."
Admirable and enviable, without a doubt. Life balance is a comforting buzzword phrase. Striving for "mediocre" perhaps less so. But, to work less, succeed more, enjoy more, and have more, are perhaps persistent dreams of anyone born without the proverbial silver spoon? Everyone is at least somewhat in pursuit of such balance. Notably, however, the so-called "quiet quitters" are not so much "slackers" who don't do their jobs. These are a cadre of employees who do the job they’re given, but offer a little if anything more. Some might suggest that they are essentially the ever-present backbone of the working world.
There is nothing to suggest that they are not productive. No allegation is made that they are undependable, dishonest, or untrustworthy. They are neither unwanted nor unproductive. The point is not that they are any of those derogatory labels, but that they are not perhaps that for which management or ownership wishes or even pines. They do what they must, and then they head for the beach. Not subpar and worthy of termination, but similarly not the go-getter worthy of that promotion.
The "quiet quitters" are not the over-driven young urban professionals (yuppies) of the 1980s. If they even perceive the brass ring, they express neither intention nor motivation to make any attempt at seizure thereof. In point of fact, these workers are not "quitters" in any sense of the word. They are, essentially, people who have made a decision to persist in the role which they have achieved without the distraction of dreaming or aspiring to some greater role. Well, not rationally aspiring to some greater role; it is possible that they daydream of some fateful chance elevating them from their current mediocrity.
These are employees that are not in search of the next opportunity, not in pursuit of the next promotion. These are individuals focused upon the here and now, the sufficiency of the assignment specifically delegated, of doing their basic duty and departing for home. From this regiment, don’t expect nights and weekends. From this compliment, don’t expect volunteerism and exuberance. They are adequate to their roles and economical in their effort. They are, in a word, "sufficiental." Before you look it up, I made that word up
Social media celebrates this, and articles are written. The Internet comes alive with discussion, articles are written, and social media applauds. If social media loves it, it must be good. However, I question the perception that this is something new. This is not, from my perspective, new, unique, or newsworthy. There have always been workers without motivation, aspiration, or inspiration. I have worked with a great many of them over the decades. They exist in offices, restaurants, education, manufacturing, service, and more. If I am shocked in any way it is the conclusion that they are merely "at least 50%." In my pre-law careers, and there were several, I would have estimated more like 70-80%. The vast majority.
I have worked with a vast array of the silent generation, baby boomers, Gen X, GenZ, and more. I saw many examples of quiet quitting in each. I would submit that the concept is not new, merely the label. I would suggest that the attitude is not unique, only more condoned today. There is an expansion in the acceptance of mediocrity in the workplace, and sympathy for the sentiment that despite shortcomings of motivation, productivity, or drive, such workers nevertheless should be amply rewarded. The argument for better pay and benefits is not based on production or success but on "fairness." What is "a living wage" and shouldn't everyone be taken care of?
The arguments are floated with difficult to decry labels such as "the living wage." The sentiments of socialism ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," Karl Marx, 1875) seem to persistently grow stronger in society. The labels and phrases change to disguise the Marx, but remain right on the marks. Why should a person labor diligently, extensively, or even obsessively in some pursuit of making others comfortable or rich? Why go the extra mile when there is nothing more in that for me? The fruits of labor might motivate more, if the fruit did not have to be persistently shared with the mediocre fellow traveler? How many quit quietly because others before them have been tolerated, compensated, and retained?
I have seen many an employee come and go over the hurt feelings of wages that did not keep pace with perceptions of worth. But that is not "quiet," that is merely "quitting." The tradition of quitting is certainly not new. And, the quiet variety is not new or novel either. It is merely labeled and lauded.
Is quiet quitting lamentable or praiseworthy? Is there anything wrong with being adequate, dependable, and predictable? In a world of challenges and competitions, is there anything wrong with being willing and satisfied to do the tasks to which one is assigned? While I have heard managers complain about the unmotivated, the "adequate," the "plodder," this seems a new acceptance or popularity of the role. Those workers are perhaps uninspired, but they are getting the daily work done. If that worker was more competitive, more motivated, or more ambitious, a manager might worry that they would quit and go work somewhere else.
The recent excitement on social media is noted. The new label is interesting and thought-provoking as it overlaps the passivity and subtlety of "quiet" with the action and motivation of "quitting." Whether by intent or default, one is in a career path, position, or posture that is not inspiring. One withdraws emotionally and merely does what is expected. This is simply not new. While the "next generation" perhaps wants to own it, and commentators want to weave it into our Pandemic, it is simply not new. The motivation may be influenced by our recent appreciation that life is short and perhaps fragile, but that likely justifies rather than motivates the quiet quit that is at least 25 years old.
People will be individuals. They will perform at work based on their personal motivation, inspiration, and expectation. Management can strive to affect them, change them, and profit. That is dependent upon management's determination, effort, and drive. To what extent are they willing to invest in the challenge of lackadaisical producers and adequate ("mediocre") performance? Or, in today's environment of recruiting and retention challenges, to what extent are they willing to tolerate and work around those who are willing to do exactly what is required and nothing more?
That is not to say that the future is bleak. If only half of the workforce is quiet quitters, what is the other half? Certainly, some of them are likely the actual quitters. But, as certainly, some portion of that other half are the movers, shakers, and drivers. Managers who find themselves fortunate enough to find such an employee, if in fact that is what is desired or valued, should be careful to make such value felt and appreciated. How many potentially great employees have left your firm, or company, or concern for greener pastures elsewhere? What did you do to value, reward, and retain them?
Managers who aspire to change participation and motivation will have to inspire and drive change among the "quiet." Workers who are content with the status quo and want no more will likewise have to be content with the rewards that flow therefrom. Marxism is long disproven. Every example of socialism in the world eventually fails. Those who do produce inevitably tire of carrying the masses that simply want to subsist and take. To each, according to what each can forcibly extract from others at the point of legislation, is no recipe for societal progress, merely a slow path of diminishing all to the lowest common denominator.
In our society, if the work is mundane and rote, the pay likely will be also (at least until they program a computer to do it, and replace you completely). There will be those in each camp who are satisfied and those who will complain or lament. There may also be a few in each camp who can inspire change or who can be inspired (to thrive or to quit). The world will continue to turn, management will continue to challenge, and workers will continue to work. "Water is wet, the sky is blue . . .." Nothing new to see here folks, move along.
By Judge David Langham
Courtesy of Florida Workers' Comp
Read Also
- Aug 12, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 06, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
About The Author
About The Author
-
Judge David Langham
David Langham is the Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims for the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims at the Division of Administrative Hearings. He has been involved in workers’ compensation for over 25 years as an attorney, an adjudicator, and administrator. He has delivered hundreds of professional lectures, published numerous articles on workers’ compensation in a variety of publications, and is a frequent blogger on Florida Workers’ Compensation Adjudication. David is a founding director of the National Association of Workers’ Compensation Judiciary and the Professional Mediation Institute, and is involved in the Southern Association of Workers’ Compensation Administrators (SAWCA) and the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC). He is a vocal advocate of leveraging technology and modernizing the dispute resolution processes of workers’ compensation.
More by This Author
- Jun 05, 2023
- Judge David Langham
- May 20, 2023
- Judge David Langham
Read More
- Aug 12, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 06, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 05, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 02, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Jul 01, 2024
- Frank Ferreri