Challenges in quiet quitting

The recent video post on TikTok about “quiet quitting” has become a subject of discussion in the HR (human relations) circles of the business community.

Quiet quitting has been defined as the act of an employee of doing or performing the minimum requirements of his or her job and nothing more.

That means reporting for work and punching out on the times and days prescribed by the employer, keeping strictly to the job description, avoiding additional work assignments and doing nothing that may interfere with personal activities after office hours.

The underlying mantra of this mindset is, there is (and should be) life after work and the employer can go bust if it feels uncomfortable about that.

There is nothing unlawful or irregular about quiet quitting. Unless an employee’s contract provides for compulsory overtime work under certain circumstances, he or she cannot be faulted for working only during regular working hours.

Quiet quitting may arise when employees think they are not properly compensated, or their work assignments are not compatible with their training or expertise, or they find the work environment toxic.

Those reasons, however, may not matter to employees who are in their late 30s or 40s, or have no marketable skills that would allow them to seek employment elsewhere, and are therefore forced by circumstances to stay on to ensure the availability of food on their table.

Based on some surveys conducted abroad on work attitudes, quiet quitting is prevalent among Generation Z (Gen Z) or those born between 1997 and 2012.

By this time, they would be in their early or middle 20s and are either gainfully employed or engaged in businesses that make full use of modern digital technology.

They grew up in a social and political milieu that put at the forefront the issues of work-life balance, environmental protection and climate change.

Those are the same issues that their predecessor, the millennials (or those born between 1981 and 1996), initially confronted and which later assumed more significance.

In addition, Gen Z experienced the hardships caused by COVID-19 in terms of massive loss of jobs, severe restrictions on movements, inadequate health care and death of their kin or friends.

Recall, too, that it was at the height of the pandemic when mental health became a serious problem among the younger generation.

Gen Z, in effect, went through a distinct period of distress and uncertainty that their parents and grandparents did not experience.

Probably realizing the fragility of life, Gen Z have looked beyond the four corners of their offices and did a serious reassessment of the direction of their future.

Although monetary considerations remain important, the fulfillment of personal and professional aspirations that were nurtured during their formative adult years may have become front and center for them.

Thus, some Gen Z members may be looking at quiet quitting as a means by which they can partly accomplish their objective of work-life balance without sacrificing the financial benefits of their job.

And while they keep a façade of diligence in attending to their assigned tasks, they may be surfing the internet or discreetly asking around for employment elsewhere that would be personally and professionally satisfying to them.

Given these circumstances, quiet quitting should not be treated as a fleeting or temporary work phenomenon that can be ignored, hoping that those engaged in it would have a change of heart and go beyond the minimum requirements of their job.

The challenge to the affected employers is to understand the situation of the quiet quitters and take the necessary measures to address their concerns regarding work-life balance, flexibility at work and professional advancement.

Indeed, the work environment in the country has evolved and businesses have to adjust to new workplace norms. INQ

For comments, please send your email to “[email protected].”