Analysis: ‘Quiet quitting’ is not new nor is it a problem

Employers have been trying to get inside their employees’ heads for over a century. In 1920, Whiting Williams, who was a personnel director for a steel company, even disguised himself as a factory worker to write a book called “What’s On the Worker’s Mind: by One Who Put on Overalls to Find Out.” [o que os trabalhadores têm na cabeça: por um autor que vestiu o macacão para descobrir].

This year, a popular video on TikTok about “quiet quitting” created extra work for workforce motivation experts. According to Gallup, about half of Americans have adopted the “quiet quitting”, a term that the institution defines as “people who do not go beyond the expected at work and limit themselves to fulfilling what their contract prescribes”.

Human resources experts and consultants were not slow to offer suggestions on how to solve the problem. An article in the Harvard Business Review urged managers to ask themselves, “Is this a problem with my subordinates or a problem with me and my leadership skills?”

In my opinion, it’s not a problem at all. For starters, Gallup poll data suggests this is neither new nor a trend. Just under a third of American workers showed “engagement” at work, and nearly a fifth of them exhibited “active disengagement” (Gallup defines “quiet quitters” as a group that doesn’t meet either of these two descriptions). The proportions have fluctuated a bit over time, but are completely in line with the average that has existed since 2000.

Second, I would suggest that if your people show up every day and do exactly what you ask them to do, they’re not quiet quitting: they’re working. Some people will always be driven to do more than is asked of them, out of ambition, pleasure, perfectionism, or insecurity, but if you anticipate that everyone else does, we can no longer use the term “above and beyond the call of duty.”

Indeed, companies that have built their business model on a foundation of people who are constantly going “beyond” the roles their role involves are on dangerous ground. Some of the clutter on UK railways in recent weeks serves as an example: operators like Avanti have for years relied on their staff to voluntarily work extra shifts on their days off; when the goodwill of the workers was exhausted, the service went into crisis.,

Likewise, many companies in the video game industry rely on “crunch” (a period when the workday is very long) to meet their deadlines. Some companies in the industry say this has evolved into a permanent “culture of crunch”. According to a survey by the International Game Developers Association, in 2019, 42% of developers said that “crunch” was the expectation in their workplaces, and that only 8% of them received payment for overtime.

Shaun Rutland, chief executive of Hutch, a video game maker, says that when a professional is young, working ridiculous hours can create camaraderie, but that it also damages people’s health and relationships, and ultimately has negative results for people. the company. He remembers that when he was young, he had to work from 8 am to 8 pm for months on end. “I was so grateful to get a job in the video game business that my attitude was that I was willing to do anything for the company, but it caused me serious health problems.”

And forcing people to work too hard is not productive either. A study conducted by Erin Reed, a professor of management at McMaster University, Canada, found that managers are unable to distinguish between people who work 80 hours a week and people who only pretend to work.

What is implicit in the corporate panic over “quiet quitting” is something deeper: the idea that people who adopt the practice are “psychologically disconnected” from their employers because their “engagement needs are not being fully met.” , as Gallup says. But it is dubious to enter this territory. What if the person loves their job but not the organization they do it for, or vice versa? What if “purpose” matters to some people but not to others? What if some people do their job just for the money, but they’re still really good at it?

My advice to employers is to get out of your employees’ heads, stop worrying about whether or not they love their bosses, and focus on what workers produce. Are they doing a good job or not? This is not to say that there is no reason to ask workers how they feel. But if you need to do “engagement” surveys, my experience of contacting workers over more than a decade suggests that there are only three questions that need to be asked. Do you think your work is harming your health? Is your immediate superior a decent person? And do you think your salary is fair?

At its heart, the fuss over quietting reveals an unhealthy understanding of the relationship between companies and their people. Employers don’t need to meet all of their employees’ psychological needs, and employees don’t need to be passionate about their employers. How about a simple contractual relationship of mutual respect and clearly defined obligations? I propose the definition “work for adults”. Now I just need to make a video about it on TikTok.

Translation by Paulo Migliacci