Quiet Quitting - What are we Missing?
Let's talk quiet quitting!
Quiet quitting isn't the newest kid on the block, but the notion of it has only been around for about 9 months - at least in my social media bubble!
If you're not familiar with the term quiet quitting it is the idea that employees "only work to rule". That they do what is expected of them but no more. Quiet quitting is something that is being talked about in the HR & L&D space a lot at the moment - but what actually does it mean and what impact is it really having?
I'll give you my thoughts, but first, a squirrel for context.
Ever completed an engagement survey? Ever filled in a feedback form when you've eaten a meal or shopped somewhere? These surveys provide organisations with metrics and data, and from an employment perspective from this data we can measure engagement.
There are typically four levels of engagement; highly engaged, engaged, somewhat engaged, and disengaged. (Oxford comma for you Christy Gharbo, M.A.). At each of these levels there's an estimated level of productivity. Now don't freak out, you know this already! If I asked you on your team who was the most and least productive you could tell me. This is me quantifying it so that we can understand quiet quitting.
So let's say an individual who is highly engaged gives more than 100% (data suggests around 120%) meaning you get more from them than the salary you pay. An engaged individual gives 100% so you get exactly what you pay for. And so on and so forth. For this article, I don't need to give the other two percentages but maybe we will talk more about it in a later one if people care ;)
When we are talking about quiet quitting (and let's be honest demonising those who are quiet quitting) we are talking about employees moving from highly engaged to engaged. We are talking about individuals who used to give 120% and now are giving 100%.
We are talking about individuals doing what they are being paid to do. No more, and arguably more importantly, not less.
So why are we demonising quiet quitters?
Why when I read an article on quiet quitting are the images depicting people with their heads in their hands or with hopelessness in their eyes? Well the answer is pretty simple... organisations rely on discretionary effort. They rely on people being willing and able to think outside the box and go the extra mile to get things done. The problem with quiet quitting is that these things don't happen. Instead of working that extra 30 mins to get the report out, you switch off and check out at the time you no longer get paid. Sunday evening email check so you're ahead of the game come Monday? Not for a quiet quitter! Sunday is the weekend and you're not on the clock.
Now you may be thinking - I do this already and I call it work/life balance. And sure, this is absolutely right, but quiet quitting is about a shift in an individual from being highly engaged to being engaged. It's about a change in behaviour from giving 120% and all of that discretionary effort to working your hours and putting in place those boundaries.
And this is where I think there's a missing piece to the puzzle that very few people are talking about (exceptions to this in my network are Sarah Clein and Sally Henderson who I've seen also reference this).
What is the missing piece to the quiet quitting puzzle?
Quiet quitting is about a change in behaviour of an individual. Right now in the conversations that are being had and the media reporting that I am seeing we aren't talking about the "why" behind the change.
Individuals who are hard-wired to work above and beyond don't wake up one day and decide that they are going to stop. In fact, speaking with coaching clients of mine who have quietly quit it is actually really painful to do so! To have the restraint not to check emails on a Sunday and to not do a couple of extra hours to get things across the line is counter-intuitive to the way they work.
For me, when an individual quietly quits it is because something has happened that has impacted the psychological contract between the individual and the organisation that they work for. Here's a link if you want to learn more about psychological contracts. https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/psychological-factsheet/.
To put it simply, the organisation is not fulfilling their side of the psychological contract and the individual has picked up on this. They aren't disengaged, they aren't not doing their job, they don't need to be performance managed. They need to be listened to and feel heard.
Can you pull someone back from quiet quitting?
I believe so but it might take more work than you think. It requires your managers to be skilled enough to understand and spot when someone is quiet quitting and have the ability and empathy to try and fix what has been broken. It is not the responsibility of the individual to pull themselves back.
If you're looking for ways to start the conversation, start by asking questions at a human level, open questions where you're seeking to understand rather than make judgement. If you're not sure which questions to start with, drop me a message and I'll send some over. Let's forget productivity and engagement metrics, and let's get down to the heart of it which is that something has happened to create that change in behaviour and the person in question has likely been upset or hurt by something that has happened.
Or I guess the alternative is that we just replace everyone with robots?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on quiet quitting! But for now...
Toodles x
