Posted on 08/02/2024 10:21:36 AM PDT by Brookhaven
A recent trend of “quiet quitting,” doing the minimum effort in one’s job, has presented itself in the workplace, leading to negative work environments.
The concept of quiet quitting came from TikTok, and the idea quickly became viral. TikTok user Sarai Marie was the loudest voice in the trend.
Marie created several videos demonstrating the concept and how to “quiet quit” in your workplace. She included clocking in at 9 a.m., not taking on any additional work and clocking out at the end of her shift at 5 p.m.
The purpose behind this movement is to show employers that employees are “acting our wage” says Marie.
According to Investopedia “Quiet quitting refers to doing the minimum requirements of one’s job and putting in no more time, effort, or enthusiasm than absolutely necessary.”
By doing the bare minimum and refusing to take on additional work, employees feel they make a statement to the employers that they deserve to be paid more before additional work is done.
Rachel Wright is a 22-year-old who works in sales for a marketing software company. Wright sees quiet quitting as a generational debate between baby boomers and Generation Z.
“Baby boomers were raised to get a job as young as possible and stay there as long as possible. Being a 'work horse' was seen as valiant and commendable,” Wright said. “On the other hand, Gen Zs have really taken the 'work smarter not harder' saying to heart.”
Quiet quitting begs the question of whether or not we have normalized overworking without proper pay leading to burn out in employees. Overworking can even lead to more potential life-threatening issues and should be minimized if possible, according to Medical News Today.
Grace Nixon is a 19-year-old who works at a local soda shop. She feels employees are justified in working the bare minimum of what is required. 'I think that people can benefit from learning from it and help prevent burn out,' Nixon said.
Nixon continues explaining how in her situation, she has worked for the company for over a year and originally always strived to go above and beyond. After a few months, she felt that her work was going unappreciated.
'I have shown how capable I am and now they expect me to do more without a pay raise or recognition,' she said.
Then, it is argued that quiet quitting really ends up hurting the employer because a company will end up 'getting what they pay for' in an employee, Wright said. By doing the bare minimum, employees are doing exactly what is expected but the company may see a decline in productivity, which could affect future job positions.
'It affected the workplace by making me enjoy work more. I am more laid back and not so stressed feeling like everything was on my shoulders,'
Grace Nixon
'Quiet quitting will favor you in the short run and burden you in the long run if done consistently,' Josh Bain, a 22-year-old lead technician and manager for a car detailing company, said.
'It’s harder to stand out because managers often reward going above and beyond,' Wright said. Without taking on extra work, supervisors may not notice work ethic, willingness or dependability.
Allie Maranto is a 24-year-old store manager for a retail store and hires many different types of employees. She explained how she recognizes and values the employees that work hard and go the extra mile over the ones that just clock in and clock out.
'Quiet quitting has the potential to interfere with future jobs,' she said. 'Meaning your boss will not have a great recommendation of your work history.'
Morality and values are also taken into account in this debate because at some point you could be taking advantage of employers' time and money. 'It seems to be immoral from an overall standpoint, but I can see certain cases where it is justified,' Bain said.
Another concern of quiet quitting is the negative effect it has on the workplace and relationships between coworkers.
'Quiet quitting causes serious division between employees,' Claire Matz, a 22-year-old dental receptionist for a dental office in Orem, Utah, said.
'I have seen it in my workplace when someone doesn’t do their part of the job, someone else always has to pick up the slack,' she said.
However, on the other note, quiet quitting can benefit the employees participating.
'I think for me it affected the workplace by making me enjoy work more. I am more laid back and not so stressed feeling like everything was on my shoulders,' Nixon said. 'Now I have better relationships with my coworkers and the job itself.'
I find it ironic that completely fulfilling your job description has been tagged as "quitting". It's doing your job.
In this era of downsizing and instant layoffs, it's easy to understand how people can become disenchanted with the idea of putting in the extra effort to move up the corporate ladder, only to have the ladder pulled out from under them.
Intel just laid off 15,000 employees. How much did putting in extra effort and long hours help them? Not at all.
I've been in the workforce 50 years. And times have changed.
The most efficient way to move up in the world is to change jobs. Aquire new skills & experience, then leverage that into a new, higher paying, job.
In the last couple of decades, companies (by and large) have stopped internal development. They are just as likely to hire someone off the street. Part of the reason is companies now recognize they often need new blood to shake up the system. So, they often ignore the internal candidates.
I'm sure my take won't be the popular one here, but the days of busting your tail, spending 30 years at a single company, and moving up the ladder are long gone.
Like I said, Intel just laid off 15,000 employees.
Tiktokers invent “screwing off”
My employer is expecting us to do a lot of extra training to “upskill” on dubious things like AI, but not use work time.
It’s a way of getting a lot more “productivity” out of people without any extra pay.
If you take a test, they only pay for a passing score, too.
This may work (no pun intended) at large companies but I suspect it will not work in a small company.
In a large company an employee is just one cog in a big machine and if that cog doesn’t work there is another that will take up the slack.
However in a small company every employee has to do their job or eventually the business will go under (but before that happens there will be some firing and hiring going on).
I’m just learning about this new movement, but it appears to be a method of indirect communication used mostly by women.
The employee has more to lose than the employer, by using this method.
I couldn’t count how many people I’ve known over the decades that simply do their job, nothing else, and go home every day. They’ve got zero interest in working harder or making themselves stand out. This is nothing new.
That being said, I have seen people that put in extra effort be rewarded with extra pay and bonuses. Myself included. It’s led me to get promotions and new, better jobs.
It’s a problem of motivation and satisfaction. The people the stop working immediately when there are breaks or end of the day; just don’t care.
I would look at the job description for the position directly above mine on the company's organization chart. Within 12-18 months of starting in my current position, I would aim to develop the skills I needed to do 50% of that job.
For years, I was promoted faster than anyone else in the company.
sounds typically spiteful, manipulative and post-millenial.
That world doesn’t exist anymore.
That's not true.......people who do that know how important it is to ‘balance’ the day and so do the companies. I've always worked hard ‘and smart’.....and I braked hard and smart as well. Paid of handsomely in my life.
........”The most efficient way to move up in the world is to change jobs. Aquire new skills & experience, then leverage that into a new, higher paying, job.”......
Yes! Which is what I did and it worked well for me. “Leveraging” is key and knowing how to do that.
There are several forces at work to create an atmosphere where “quietly quitting” is a thing. Meritocracy is dead in many companies. Working harder, accomplishing more than your peers, being smarter, faster, better, are no longer key metrics in the advancement/pay calculus. Severance has become standard for many, if not most corporations. In many cases people are OK with taking a nice severance and moving on, which might be the only way they can advance.
After years of working, I found employers no longer have any allegiance with their employees. You’ll be dumped in a second regardless of how hard you work or what you done for the company.
Working in government is a whole different world than private sector. Those in the private sector can be fired for any reason they can come up with. Any reason whatsoever....People in government are amused by that world.
Many managers look at staff as one big blob and become irate when parts of the blob won't work harder to cover for slackers.
I worked for a small, growing company that was always looking for talented people to fill senior positions. Those companies still exist today.
I can see both sides of this. I fully expect most will describe the workers here as lazy but so long as they are doing what they’re paid to do and doing a decent job of it then I’d say employers who expect them to take on extra work are being unreasonable. Now if they’re not doing solid work during work hours, that’s a different matter.
If you want to do the same job your entire time at the company, that's fine. But if you have a menial job, let's say flipping burgers, and wish to rise to be manager of the restaurant, just doing your job to the bare minimum isn't going to get you there. Yet here we are, with people in their 30's, 40's and beyond asking "would you like fries with that?" and expecting to be making "head of household" pay.
In the last couple of decades, companies (by and large) have stopped internal development. They are just as likely to hire someone off the street. Part of the reason is companies now recognize they often need new blood to shake up the system. So, they often ignore the internal candidates.
Corporations have always used "churn" to cut dead weight and bring in "new blood" as you wrote. Cutting the bottom 5%-10% (by performance) of your employees has been a common process for many decades. NOT doing so drags down the rest of the workforce. The problem is that without applying meritocracy to that process, you are no longer improving your workforce or productivity, you are just making it more "diverse, equal and inclusive".
When I am working my employer gets my attention and work. When they tell me to work at home without pay, ain’t happening. I was told I need to work 10 hrs. of community service a month and I asked HR if I was going to be paid and they said no it’s community service. I said no pay, no work, I choose where my charity goes, when and how. They let it lay.
I’m a gen X and I believe in doing a good job when on the clock, they get maximum effort, but I have found that employer loyalty goes one way and I’m not playing that game. My rule for the last 30 yrs is when I walk out the door closing time I leave my work at my office.
That being said the Z attitude of barely working and expecting a raise is out right stupid. If you are doing that in my office I will get rid of you the first chance I get. If you are busting your butt and going above and beyond you get noticed, you get a raise if I can make it happen, if I can’t I work with you when you need that extra hour off early for your kids Christmas play, little things.
It is well known in HR circles that “cutting the bottom 10%” results in the top 10% leaving too.
The reason why is that they are very mobile (able to find another job) and they really want to feel like they are winning.
When companies start in with the usual rhetoric about difficult choices and tough times, the message they send to their best employees is “your corporate leadership is incompetent.”
Plus I have never actually seen a real “bottom 10%” layoff. The reality is always that it is really an “over 50” layoff with a few sacrificial young people thrown in for cover.
And in every case I have ever experienced, awesome employees are laid off while painfully incompetent people are kept, making the whole thing a rather obvious lie.
On the other hand, healthy companies empower their front line managers to fire bad employees because those managers know who is bad and who isn’t.
From the top mass layoffs never have anything to do with anyone’s performance other than the incompetent corporate leadership themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.