Thoughts on QUIET QUITTING

I'm 37 - a quick google search says I'm 'Gen Y' or Millenial, so take that for what it's worth.

I have an MA and work as a data analyst/survey researcher.

My opinion on this is that tons of people have been doing this for years and years among more working class and manual labor groups and middle-tier white collar groups (wasn't this exactly what Office Space was about?).

In my office, I could name at least 10 people that had 'Quiet Quit' before I even joined this organization and they have stayed 'Quiet Quit' since. Some got cut during the pandemic, but lots did not. They just kept doing the bare minimum and the inertia of regular office life and work processes mercifully carried them along.

Part of me would LOVE to do this. But I'm too nervous about my job and have a little too much ego wrapped up in work to really give it a go.

Remember when "quiet quitting" was called "mailing it in"?

Mostly agree. 29 here, tail end of Millennial. Have worked in an out of managerial positions, been frontline and leadership. Some folks with few chances of upward mobility in their organization are less likely to go above and beyond because they see little to no payoff for doing so. I've seen highly capable employees start jobs very excited, proactive, and hyper-productive, but then over time are disincentivized to "do more" for that reason. I've also seen the opposite – generally disengaged workers become excited about new opportunities to do tasks that they like, find better ways to do their current job, or develop new skills.

My take is that if an employer is worried that their employees are only doing work that is written into their job description and no more than that, they should simply expand the job role so that "bare minimum" is actually an acceptable amount of work to serve the organization, or give incentives to employees for doing more. There are a gazillion ways to engage employees. Managers sometimes don't want to do the extra work to make that happen, or are sometimes constrained by upper management to make that happen. But I would argue that in some cases (not always), the managers who are vocally up-in-arms about people doing "the bare minimum" are simply poor managers. Their job is a job too, and "quiet quitting"––which has always existed––also applies to their refusal to find new creative ways to get their employees to care about things outside of their job description (which, again, can be updated and negotiated). But honestly, managers should really start getting worried when people start doing LESS than what they're contractually obligated to do. If you want people to do more, literally just make it their job to do more, within reason.

Most

I'd never heard this term before. Honestly seems kind of miserable. I've had jobs that just didn't require much effort because there wasn't much work to be done. Was always just bored AF at those jobs. It was like being in detention, just showing up and watching the clock tick.

That said, I understand why people in a lot of lines of work are fed up with the idea that everyone should go above and beyond even if the rewards of their efforts accrue to other people. But I'd just rather seek out more meaningful work than stay in a job and mail it in myself.

Most want to do a good job. But many also recognize bad treatment & disrespect.

I had to google "quiet quitting" because I was unfamiliar with the term. It appears to have materialized out of thin air over the last month. In just the last few days, there have been articles on this topic published by The NYT, The Atlantic, NPR, The Hill, Fox Business, Business Insider, Harvard Business Review, and Forbes, among many others. It's a full-on national panic.

Spare me. I am a millennial who works in a white collar office/field that is dominated by Boomers and Gen Xers. Half of the people I work with have been "quiet quitting" their whole lives. Hard not to assume that this is mostly being driven by employers who are continuing to lament their lack of leverage over their employees due to a strong job market. I'm sure calling them "quitters" for not working overtime without extra pay will help.

I have always worked for my brand name vs the company’s. I work smart to increase my value and demand in the marketplace. This prevents me from being in positions where I am dissatisfied.
You get out of life what you put into it.

My age is timeless.

If you are paying me under $10 an hour while I’m making you $150+ an hour, I am going to do the bare minimum.

Giving your 100% for a low unchanging wage isn’t being tough, it’s being taken advantage of.

You are sending a message that you are barely capable of performing a $10 an hour job. You should be finding ways to make them more money or increase your skills to earn more. Maybe that more is earned somewhere else. You are creating your own problem, playing the blame game and giving up.

Can you give an example of a job that only pays $10 but provides $150 of value?

You certainly have the right to do bare-minimum, but they have the right not to promote you or hire you for something better.

Some of you don't want to post your age. Interesting.

I do appreciate the insight in some of the replies, especially the ones who pointed out that this has always been a thing in one form or another. I do think it's possible that because of the current economical climate, it may be worse than the past, but it could also be media sensationalism.

Agree this is a terrible term for something that's always (always!!!) existed. But let's assume, for fun, that there's a kernel of newness to this so-called phenomenon.

First, why is this the term? These people aren't "quitting" and they're not being "quiet" about anything. They're simply rationally responding to the incentives laying before them: put in "x" effort for "y" reward and in the process help enrich "z" people by ??%. Someone raised Office Space, and you could also include The Office.

Second, who is pushing this term ? If it's merely the click-bait-driven media, then it just may reflect a degree of self-hatred of one's own financial class (or perhaps misguided belief that one is superior).

If it's company owners (whether private or publicly traded equity holders), then it's hilarious/sad since it either means these people are failing to manage their workforce well (ie: their fault) or they feel so entitled as to expect to vastly extract more value from human beings than they are willing to reward them for -- and this at a time of surging economic inequality.

Of course, this is probably an invetible result of a system skewed to vastly over-represent the interests of capital owners and treat the laborers as raw material

I think I do like the term because it can be used in different contexts. Like quiet quitting a relationship. Or quiet quitting life. Quiet quitting running. Although I could see how people could despise this terminology.

people arent just quiet quitting at their jobs, they are quiet quitting in their life.

think of all the people in your high school growing up. most were quiet quitting. if you didnt rock the sats, and get into an ELITE college (and had to settle with a state college), you quiet quitted your high school academic experience.

if you went to college and didnt get deans list every semester and major in the hardest and most challenging subject, you are a quiet quitter.

think of all the lazy parents. quiet quitting parenting

most people are quiet quitters.

Quiet quitting, mailing it in, working from home all synonymous

not to mention liberals are quiet quitting

-stop paying student loans because biden will forgive them

-stop working because government will give me welfare, free phone, UBI etc

-stop studying so hard because if im a preferred race I can get into school on skin color alone

-stop paying for things at the grocery store because liberals have decriminalized petty theft in urban areas

why not quiet quit. the government will take care of you. no incentive to try hard now.

Get help. Turn off your TV. Go outside.