What We Should Be Asking About “Quiet Quitting”
Burning questions about quiet quitting from an executive coach in Singapore
“Quiet Quitting” is the latest buzzword that’s been making waves in the social media circle.
Ever since it became the “trending” topic, its entire premise has been widely debated. Many arguments have been made, both for and against the notion of quiet quitting.
As an executive coach for the past 14 years, and having coached C-Suite leaders in my leadership development program, I wanted to take the time to unpack what this quiet quitting is all about and give my take on the questions that should be asked and answered about this trending phenomenon.
What is Quiet Quitting?
The idea behind quiet quitting, simply put, is to go against what is known as the “hustle culture” and advocate for the mentality of not letting work be your entire life.
This can take the form of drawing clear boundaries, such as not clocking overtime or saying “no” to job tasks that do not fall within the agreed-upon job description.
When employees are "quiet quitting," they are not literally quitting their job. Rather, they simply draw clear boundaries and protect their after-work hours.
These workers aren't necessarily unhappy with their jobs; they see their job purely as a job, and nothing more. Therefore, they will not go the extra mile without additional compensation or incentives. In fact, proud "quiet quitters" often say that they are simply "acting their wage."
Quiet Quitting: Are We Asking the Right Questions?
As someone in the executive coaching scene, I believe that three questions should be on the minds of all employers when it comes to quiet quitting.
Is quiet quitting really a new phenomenon?
The proliferation of this “collective re-discovery” was largely due to social media, TikTok in particular, where people took to their social media platforms to proudly declare that they are taking back their life through quiet quitting.
In my opinion as an executive coach in Singapore, this term is enticing and will continue to grow in appeal, because the aftermath of the pandemic radically shifted people’s mindsets toward work.
Before COVID-19, it was almost unheard of for employees to request to “work from home.” Now, it has become almost a given that employers should allow employees to work from home. In fact, a recent study by Randstad revealed that “ 2 in 5 workers in Singapore would not accept a job if they are not able to work from home.”
The shift in mindsets towards work fuelled the consensus that work should not consume our lives and prompted many to question whether they, too, had been concentrating too much on work at the expense of their personal lives.
Many have joked that if the definition of quiet quitting was to establish clear boundaries between their work and personal life, then they must have been quiet quitters all along.
Others have taken a more critical stance on why this even qualifies as an emerging trend. After all, if quiet quitting is to do your job during working hours and executive your work responsibilities, isn’t that just doing the bare minimum of what’s expected of you?
Perhaps this is not a new phenomenon after all, but simply a newly coined term that has been commonly referred to as a euphemism for people doing their jobs.
What is quiet quitting really saying?
There is nothing inherently wrong with quiet quitting. Employees should not be expected to work beyond their working hours or take on more responsibilities outside of their job scope. Similarly, all employees should be able to say “no” and set clear boundaries when it comes to what they do for work.
What concerns me, however, as someone in the leadership coaching field, is the mindset that quiet quitting propagates.
Quiet quitting says it’s okay for employees to do the bare minimum at their job, to clock in the hours, and leave thereafter.
If I may put it in other words, it promotes the mindset that employees should put in the bare minimum amount of effort at their job without striving for excellence. Employers should pay close attention to this as it compromises the level of performance to which employees hold themselves at work.
Quiet quitting also says that you should stick solely to your job scope and reject any other assignment that falls outside of that scope.
If I rephrase this statement again, it basically says that employees should stick to the status quo and not be open to changes to the norm. This potentially breeds a culture that inhibits innovation. Like it or not, innovation helps teams scale new heights of performance. Innovation often involves trying something new. And trying something new often means experimenting with ideas that fall outside of the initial job description.
If you have a team of quiet quitters who refuse to accept any task outside of their job scope, how would you convince them that change is necessary?
Should employers pay close attention to quiet quitting?
The hard truth is, that if employers fail to understand why employees find "quiet quitting" so appealing, they might end up blindsided and be left with a team that is no longer committed to the organisation's goals and values.
When left unchecked, the notion of quiet quitting can very well fuel presenteeism — where employees show up for work but are unproductive.
I've seen this in my work as a leadership coach for MNCs and SMEs alike. When employees choose to do the bare minimum, they're often just doing what they're told instead of thinking critically about how they can do their jobs better and more efficiently.
This stunts growth and development, which is problematic for both the employee and the organisation.
Beyond that, a team of quiet quitters will not be found challenging themselves to do anything outside of their comfort zone for fear of being “taken advantage of”. Condoning this only sets the team and organisation up for stagnation.
This leads to an environment where employees aren't motivated, which results in low levels of engagement (or, even worse — employees who are actively disengaged).
Is Quiet Quitting Here To Stay?
Having had years of experience in executive coaching, my take is that quiet quitting will not go away.
Quiet quitters have been among us from the beginning.
As the trend continues to gain traction, it will be interesting to see how leaders and organisations respond.
Would it force the hands of employers to review their HR policies to increase perks and drum up employee engagement? Would it build up leaders who want to understand their employees — what motivates them and what they naturally thrive at?
Only time will tell.
My only advice as an executive coach to all leaders, employers, and bosses out there is to be at the forefront of this trend lest its far-reaching impact catches you off guard.
