Home Posts tagged Quiet quitting

Addressing the Trend of Quiet Quitting in the Workplace

By Contributor
Employment

Motivation Matters

By Nicole Polite

 

Quiet quitting is a term that has recently gained traction, describing a workplace trend where employees strictly limit their tasks to what is outlined in their job descriptions, refusing to work longer hours or overextend themselves. While these individuals fulfill their basic duties, they establish clear boundaries to preserve work-life balance and resist the notion that ‘work is life.’

This behavior does not necessarily indicate a lack of commitment or intent to leave the organization. Rather, it often highlights a need to manage workplace stress or dissatisfaction effectively. This type of withdrawal could also suggest that an employee is reevaluating their career path or actively seeking new opportunities.

The concept gained notability during the period known as the Great Resignation, a time when many individuals reflected deeply on their careers, salaries, and how they are treated in the workplace. The primary motives behind quiet quitting often include a lack of advancement opportunities, insufficient pay, and a feeling of being undervalued. This isn’t a new phenomenon; workers have been adopting this approach for years in response to issues like poor compensation, unmanageable workloads, and inadequate growth opportunities.

 

Signs of Quiet Quitting

Quiet quitting can manifest in various ways, some of which include:

• Not attending meetings;

• Poor attendance;

• Arriving late or leaving early;

• Noticeable reduction in productivity;

• Lesser involvement in team projects;

• Avoiding participation in planning or strategy meetings; or

• A general lack of enthusiasm or engagement in work.

 

Ripple Effects of Quiet Quitting

Increased Workload for Others: With some employees dialing back their efforts, their colleagues often face increased workloads, which can result in burnout and further disengagement, perpetuating a harmful cycle.

Compromised Reputation: Quiet quitting can take a toll on an organization’s external image. Internal problems can tarnish its reputation as a desirable workplace, making it challenging to attract and retain skilled personnel.

Loss of Competitive Edge: In competitive sectors, where innovation is key, the lack of initiative resulting from quiet quitting can severely disadvantage a company.

Increased Turnover: If issues prompting quiet quitting, such as poor recognition, inadequate compensation, or limited growth prospects, aren’t addressed, employees may eventually leave the company. This turnover is not only disruptive, but also adds significant costs to the organization in terms of replacement and training.

 

Strategies for Employers to Mitigate Quiet Quitting

Employers aiming to combat quiet quitting and enhance employee engagement should focus on improving the overall employee experience through several strategic approaches:

Open Dialogue: Regularly engage with staff to understand their needs and address grievances. Genuine expressions of appreciation can significantly impact morale and motivation.

Realistic Workloads: Ensure that goals set for employees are achievable and reasonable, maintaining clear boundaries to prevent feelings of being overwhelmed.

Regular Check-ins: Create a supportive atmosphere by routinely checking in on employees’ well-being in informal settings. This can help foster a sense of belonging and care within the company.

Autonomy and Creativity: Encourage autonomy in daily tasks and problem solving to enhance creativity and personal investment in work.

Mental Health Prioritization: Develop and implement wellness programs that encourage employees to focus on their mental health. Foster an environment where mental well-being is regarded as essential as physical health.

Career Development: Actively discuss and facilitate potential career paths within the organization. Assist employees with clear, actionable steps to achieve their professional ambitions, showing commitment to their growth and development.

By implementing these strategies, organizations can not only address the issue of quiet quitting, but also cultivate a workplace culture that respects and values employee contributions and personal boundaries. Such an environment can lead to a more engaged and motivated workforce, ultimately benefiting the entire organization and leading to better overall productivity and employee satisfaction.

 

Conclusion

As quiet quitting continues to be a topic of discussion in many professional circles, it’s crucial for leaders and managers to take proactive steps to understand and address the underlying issues that lead to such behavior. By fostering an empathetic and supportive workplace, companies can ensure that their employees feel valued and motivated, reducing the inclination toward quiet quitting and boosting organizational health and effectiveness.

 

Nicole Polite is CEO of the MH Group, a staffing and recruiting firm in Massachusetts and Connecticut specializing in placing professionals in various industries with client companies.

Quiet Firings

By Contributor
Law

This Developing Trend Is Moving in the Wrong Direction

By John Gannon, Esq.

 

Quiet quitting is a term many employers are familiar with — it involves a situation where an employee disengages from work and does only the bare minimum in order to get fired and collect unemployment.

Now, employers are firing back with quiet firings.

Quiet firing involves intentionally creating a difficult work environment and/or cutting pay or hours in a way that encourages people to leave voluntarily. In theory, the employee will quickly realize they need to get out and try to find alternate work elsewhere.

On the surface, ‘quietly firing’ a problematic or difficult employee might sound like a good idea. For starters, the manager or supervisor gets to avoid an uncomfortable conversation that will certainly lead to bad feelings and possibly boil over into a confrontation. Second, if the employee who is getting quietly fired is not meeting performance expectations, managers and supervisors avoid needing to coach them and give feedback.

John Gannon

John Gannon

“Managers and supervisors may prefer this method so they do not feel guilty about the end of the employment relationship. And quiet firing can be more easily accomplished in a remote or hybrid environment, as disengaging is easier when you do not have to see someone in the office.”

They can also avoid discussions about the consequences of continued poor performance. Managers and supervisors may prefer this method so they do not feel guilty about the end of the employment relationship. And quiet firing can be more easily accomplished in a remote or hybrid environment, as disengaging is easier when you do not have to see someone in the office.

Finally, some employers may see this as an opportunity to avoid unemployment compensation claims or claims of unlawful termination because employees who resign normally have trouble succeeding with such claims.

Despite what may appear to be advantages for employers who quietly fire employees, employers should resist the urge to utilize use this strategy for a number of reasons. First, creating a hostile work environment could lead to a lawsuit. It is unlawful for an employer to create a hostile work environment that is tied to an employee’s protected characteristics, such as gender or race. Creating a hostile work environment or reducing an employee’s hours could also be considered an adverse employment action, which can lead to claims of discrimination or retaliation.

Employees who are successful with these claims can sometimes recover big damage awards. For example, back in 2018, a jury awarded $28 million in damages to a nurse who succeeded in a retaliation claim against her employer. Part of her claim was that she was being verbally abused by her supervisor. The jury agreed, and the employer had to pay — a lot — for this supervisor’s mistake.

Employees who feel as though they are being squeezed out might resort to avenues other than the courtroom to air their grievances. It is not hard to leave damaging feedback on Glassdoor, a website where current and former employees anonymously review companies. Employees can (and probably will) share their negative feedback with co-workers, which could serve as the catalyst for good employees to start looking for a new job. It’s no secret that hiring and retaining qualified employees seems to be getting harder and harder each day.

Moreover, quiet firing is often the byproduct of a poor manager or supervisor who is unwilling to do one of the more difficult parts of their job — performance management.

So what should employers do? First, leaders should insist on managers and supervisors using traditional methods to address problematic behavior, such as coaching and progressive discipline. Should those efforts prove unsuccessful, managers and supervisors need to be ready to have the difficult conversation necessary to terminate the employee.

HR leaders should also be stepping in to prevent quiet firing from becoming a thing. This should involve regular check-ins with managers to talk about difficult employees and proactively asking how they are trying to solve the problem. Hopefully, the answer is performance management. If it’s not, maybe the manager is the one who needs some coaching and/or discipline. u

 

John Gannon is a partner with the Springfield-based law firm Skoler, Abbott & Presser, specializing in employment law and regularly counseling employers on compliance with state and federal laws, including family and medical leave laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act; (413) 737-4753; [email protected]

News

Contact

Advertise

Events