Rethinking “Quiet Quitting”

Quiet quitting – a phrase that has been used to describe employees who do the minimum required of their role, decline additional responsibilities and emotionally disengage from their work. For some, it represents a lack of commitment. For others, it is viewed as setting healthier boundaries. Perhaps both perspectives miss something important. What if quiet quitting isn’t the beginning of the story? What if it is the final chapter?

As someone who has spent years working in employee wellbeing and EAPs, I’ve had the privilege of listening to employees long before they decide to resign, mentally withdraw or simply “check out.” Rarely have I encountered someone who woke up one morning and decided they no longer cared. More often than not, disengagement develops gradually. One conversation at a time. One disappointment at a time. One unmet expectation at a time.

Disengagement Rarely Happens Overnight

Employee engagement is often discussed as though it is an individual responsibility. We encourage employees to be motivated, resilient and committed. These qualities certainly matter. However, engagement does not develop in isolation. It is shaped by relationships, leadership, organisational culture and the everyday experiences people have at work. Research consistently demonstrates that employee engagement is influenced by factors such as perceived organisational support, trust in leadership, meaningful work and psychological safety (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Kahn, 1990). When these conditions begin to erode, engagement often follows.

Perhaps this is why quiet quitting feels like such a confusing phenomenon. Leaders notice the reduced effort. While, employees remember everything that happened before it. Before someone begins doing “only what is required,” there is often an invisible story.

-Perhaps they stopped sharing ideas because previous suggestions were ignored.

-Perhaps they no longer volunteer because extra effort became an expectation rather than something that was recognised.

-Perhaps they learned that speaking honestly carried more risk than reward.

-Perhaps they simply became tired of giving more than they felt was sustainable.

These experiences do not excuse disengagement. But they do help explain it. Understanding behaviour is not the same as agreeing with it. Yet without understanding, meaningful change becomes difficult.

One of the assumptions we often make is that disengaged employees simply lack motivation, but, human behaviour is rarely that simple. People bring different personalities, lived experiences, communication styles and ways of processing stress into the workplace. Some employees need frequent feedback, while others value autonomy. Some thrive on public recognition, while others simply want to know their contributions matter. Increasingly, workplaces are also recognising neurodiversity as an important part of inclusion. Employees experience psychological safety differently, communicate differently and respond differently to workplace demands. A leadership approach that motivates one employee may unintentionally alienate another. This does not mean leaders must manage everyone differently. It does mean leadership requires curiosity before judgement.

Psychological Safety Changes Everything

One concept that continues to emerge in organisational research is psychological safety. Coined by Amy Edmondson, psychological safety refers to an environment where people feel able to speak up, ask questions, acknowledge mistakes and contribute ideas without fear of embarrassment or negative consequences (Edmondson, 1999).

When psychological safety is present, employees are more likely to engage, collaborate and innovate. When it is absent, silence often becomes a form of self-protection. Sometimes quiet quitting is not about refusing to contribute. Sometimes it is about learning that contributing no longer feels safe.

A Different Conversation for Leaders

Perhaps the question is not: “Why are employees quite quitting?”

Perhaps the more useful question is: “What experiences have shaped their decision to disengage?”

This does not remove personal accountability. Employees remain responsible for communicating concerns, behaving professionally and fulfilling the responsibilities of their role. At the same time, organisations have a responsibility to create environments where people can remain engaged without sacrificing their wellbeing. Engagement is not sustained through motivation alone. It is sustained through trust.

My Final Reflections

The phrase quiet quitting may continue to dominate workplace conversations. But I wonder whether the term itself distracts us from the deeper issue. Employees rarely withdraw overnight. Disengagement often develops quietly, long before anyone notices the change in performance. Perhaps the real challenge for organisations is not identifying who has already disengaged. Perhaps it is recognising the small moments that slowly lead people there. Because by the time someone has emotionally resigned from their work, the relationship may already have begun to unravel.

References

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.