I don’t have a TikTok account, but one of my colleagues was nice enough to pass along a video in which a worker confronts a colleague that is in the midst of “quiet quitting” and eating pretzels while sipping a large Starbucks coffee.
“If the company isn’t willing to invest in me, I’m not investing in the company,” said the actress. “Nine-to-five is more than enough for me to give them.” Quiet quitting, at its core, is simply performing a job without going above-and-beyond.
“Quiet firing,” on the other hand, translates into an organization knowingly looking over workers for promotions, ignoring their demands and needs, severe micromanagement, and a wide range of passive aggressive tactics. These ideas are leveraged to “encourage” an employee to quit without the company having to pull the trigger on a firing or layoff.
And in case you’re wondering: TikTok may have reignited these two very toxic notions, but these certainly aren’t new concepts. Quiet quitting and quiet firing are two strategies that have been utilized by workers and management (respectively) for decades.
A worker pumps in over 50 hours a week, investing more of themselves than they’d like, even though there hasn’t been a pay increase in years. They trudge along, unhappy, and hope that salvation is on the horizon. A pandemic hits, emotions swell, and the realization hits: “Why am I doing this?” The worker eases off the gas, puts in the bare minimum, and quietly “quits” while presumably seeking a new role at a different organization.
It’s not such a far-fetched story. And it’s absolutely not a new idea. Nor is quiet firing, for that matter. What these both are, however, are part of a toxic war between the workforce and management that will only get worse if something doesn’t change.
The Great Resignation heralded a shift in “power” that meant workers held more cards when it came to their futures. With millions of professionals voluntarily leaving their jobs every month for well over a year, businesses were left with not only extreme staffing shortages, but a sense of resentment, as well. And now, the negative feelings on both sides are resulting in passive aggressive strategies that are impacting the labor market, as well as the delicate balance between worker and management, in a negative way.
So, the question remains: how do we solve this problem? Is there a cure to quiet quitting? Is there a solution to ensuring that quiet firing does not become a way for leaders to phase out employees?
There is no silver bullet here, nor is there a one-stop strategy that can solve these woes. The truth is that business leaders already have the tools to combat this issue…that is, if they can become conscious leaders that are in tune with their talent.
The hallmarks of conscious leadership, including empathy, the understanding of purpose, communicating value, and prioritizing wellness, are all surefire means to attack the roots of the quiet quitting problem. A business leader that is truly in tune with its team can understand the core causes of the emotions that lead to quiet quitting, particularly burnout, a lack of purpose, and a lack of clarity regarding career development.
And as for quiet firing? It’s been happening for years and management teams must understand that most, if not all, workers desire clarity and communication…especially in a Great Resignation-fueled business arena. Today’s talent must be managed much, much differently than in years past due to Future of Work-driven shifts in how work is optimized.
Honestly, enterprises cannot afford to play the quiet firing game when talent has become such a powerful competitive differentiator. As The Great Resettling plays out and The Great Resignation is in the rear-view, management teams must leverage conscious leadership strategies to understand how the workforce perceives its role within the greater organization.
There is a measure of humanity that is at stake here. Workers want to work and want to succeed, and business leaders only benefit from the value that this success brings. Now is the time to bridge the gap and begin the long process of ending a toxic workplace war that is detrimental to both talent and leadership alike.
