Avoiding the Quiet Quitting Trap

Modern debates are framed through the lens of what is attractive on social media and with a narrative or catchphrase designed to register on algorithms and click measurement tools. One such recent debate is that of “quiet quitting” – namely, to do the bare minimum in the workplace as an employee which some have coined as the equivalent to actually quitting the job, without quitting, hence the ‘quiet’ element.

Sitting in the corner, avoiding extra responsibilities and clocking off and on strictly in accordance with what is necessary. A recent Financial Times opinion piece journalist asserted that this is not a new phenomenon, and that quiet quitting is actually just someone doing their job (Sarah O’Connor “The term ‘quiet quitting’ is worse than nonsense” Financial Times Online: see: https://www.ft.com/content/a09a2ade-4d14-47c2-9cca-599b3c25a33f. 

I agree that this isn’t new; ‘sandbagging’ is a similar concept, and humans are diverse in the amount of effort they are willing to apply to different tasks in accordance with the complexities of their minds.

In some respects, quiet quitting isn’t that far removed from the industrial age notion of the factory worker still applicable today, being paid precisely for their time, skill and expertise, as components in a measurable system. With the increase in economic importance of services in the global economy, how services are ‘created’, measured and delivered is not so straightforward; services are and should be approached differently. Doing the bare minimum and getting a maximum return can be considered smart, but when the outcome is sub-optimal, the societal impact of ‘quiet quitting’ is collectively negative if there is less productivity, an increase in the wealth gap with income trapped in the non-quitting portion of workers, and a resource gap where state agency workers will not ‘assist’ citizens in exchange for taxes, but will do the least possible.

Striking a balance between employer and employee has a massive impact on daily lives for a multitude of time horizons in each human’s life. A purely transactional approach carries issues because the market is not wholly fair or rational, hence regulation for health and safety and other necessary life protecting/enhancing policies is required – albeit implemented in varying degrees and forms from country to country.

Many people are strongly altruistic, providing their time, skill and expertise in critical services such as healthcare, charities and global environment and wildlife conservation organisations, often at rates valued by the market far below the rates awarded to mainstay CEOs trying to enhance shareholder returns. Some argue that CEOs generate wealth that goes into the healthcare and government systems indirectly through taxes and productivity, so should be awarded far more than the surgeons who specialise in life-saving heart surgery.

For lack of space and time to rationalize in detail, applying the crude ‘say it out loud to see if it sounds rational’ test, I remain unconvinced that modern pay reflects effort and calibrates rewards correctly; I think these outcomes are quirks of greed reflected in the economy. I have no immediate solutions to offer for this because it is above my pay-grade if I choose to quietly quit considering issues I don’t generally work on day-to-day.