Quiet quitting is the practice of meeting minimum expectations with low moral or engagement. Underperforming could lead to termination for not meeting minimum expectations.
More like inexperienced middle-management. Discussing the team member’s reasons for disengagement could lead to a solution for them, or even multiple team members. Saying “I have nothing to complain about” proves ineffective leadership looking for cause to terminate.
The only solution I would accept involves guillotines for the rich and the immediate end to the exploitation of the proletariat globally, so I don't think that's going to work for most middle managers.
Engagement and morale are measured independently from performance. The blurb states that the employees are meeting minimum expectations of performance, so the manager has “nothing to complain about.” I’m saying that’s bullshit leadership. If your employees are unhappy, you should ask them why and address any work-related dissatisfaction.
I’m on your side, but you keep missing the point. If you’re in charge of people that need to do a job, and while they are getting the work done, they seem miserable. Wouldn’t you give enough fucks to find out why? Standing there and saying, “well I can’t fire them because they’re doing the work” is the real problem. Not the definition of engagement.
It doesn’t matter if they’re meeting or exceeding expectations. Performance is measured independently of morale and engagement. If you meet expectations, but you’re unhappy at work, a decent leader will ask why and try to make your work life better.
Cringe. Work managers aren't leaders nor should they be, they're just pencil pushers who got promoted out of whatever they were good at and are now going through the motions.
The whole system had to change, a new pool table for the office or this managerial engagement boosting working class oppression tactic isn't work reform.
Engagement and disengagement are effectively separate forms of labor expected of an employee, though, and they're virtually never formally codified. If I'm a coder and my job is to write code, don't expect me to be enthused about writing terrible medical billing software. Enthusiasm and engagement are emotional labor, which I'm not compensated for, and which, to some extent, you can't realistically expect me to demonstrate. I'm not able to "be engaged" beyond performing my tasks and whatever technical or administrative duties I've been assigned. Expecting me to contribute in a way orthogonal to that requires my job to be fundamentally different from what it actually is.
That’s fine if that’s how you like to work. All I’m saying is if an employee is silently quitting by doing the same work but shows less engagement/low morale, the solution isn’t for the manager isn’t to shrug their shoulders because you can’t fire them. That implies the manager’s goal is to terminate due to low performance, which is really shitty leadership.
I said this in another thread, but I’m not criticizing quiet quitting. I’m criticizing the managers’ response to it. If your employees are meeting expectations but unhappy, you should try to improve their work life, not shrug your shoulders because you don’t have a reason to fire them.
Normal working: doing what you're paid for but also asking managers for more work when you're done -> that's what's expected from management and also takes some load off their shoulders, they love that
Over achievement: doing what you're paid for and more without asking management -> management will promise you a seat at the table of you continue doing that long enough!
If there's advancement opportunities try to do the second one until you reach a point where you're happy and then do the first one :)
I’m a skeptic when it comes to lots of things where the common man is getting fucked.
May I ask y'all how highly-paid individuals in high positions came to be that way?
Are they ALL the results of nepotistic practices, ALL inheritors of wealth? Or 80% got there that way?
(In the SF Bay Area, certainly seems I know high performers who work their asses off, make shit tons of money, get promotions before jumping ship to other companies, work at startups that get acquired…)
Disclaimer: not endorsing neglecting your family or personal life for a pipe dream of prosperity, just sharing one perspective
Edit: I forgot, the argument could easily be “the vast majority of high earners got there by job hopping”!
A good point on the luck aspect, and you reminded me of the fact that people who already have money have "better luck" in the respect that they have more opportunities to try new things.
It's like one of those carnival games where you throw darts at balloons. Middle-class kids might get one or two darts while wealthy kids get 10. And the poor kids are the ones working at the carnival.
Something like 20% of businesses fail in their first year, and 80% are gone by year 5. If you can afford to start 5 different businesses, your odds of one surviving long enough to get bought up by Google or something are much better than somebody who put their life savings into their company.
We built some proof for the darts phenomenon in an economics class. Professor gave everyone a certain number of pieces of candy. Everyone was allowed to trade for a while, then we counted candy at the end. (Might’ve been stipulations on how trades worked, can’t recall). As you’d imagine, any kid who started with 10 pieces of candy ended with more candy than any kid who started with 3 pieces. Powerful example 🍭
In the current climate, internal promotions are a rarity. They say that you should be changing companies roughly every 3 years to ensure you're getting paid what you're worth, as pay raises don't keep up with experience. New responsibilities come quickly while promotions and pay raises come slowly. The number of times I've heard somebody say that they left a job for an immediate 10-30% (or even 50%!) pay raise and reduced responsibilities for even the same job has gotten to the point where I just expect it now.
Like everything else, it varies, but company loyalty is long dead.
Yeah, and there's the old saying, "It's not what you know, but who you know." Even ignoring the nepotism that that can obviously be applied to, there's something major to be said about social networking and finding a good job (whether that's a new job or a promotion within a company or even changing fields entirely).
When I was in college over a decade ago, our school had a program set up with GDC (the Game Devlopers' Convention) to send 3rd year students and put them up in a hotel for the duration of the convention so that they could meet industry professionals and see what was new in the industry. And right from the first day, our professors expressed how important going to the convention and getting to know the people in your major were because they could potentially lead to you getting your next job, whether your first year out of school or decades later. And that was years before the current climate of the job sector had really taken off. Some of those guys had been making games since the 80s or 90s.
Make a good impression on someone, and they might call you about a new job opening before it's publicly posted.
Makes some sense, eh? The social creature thinks to those with whom it has relationships when deciding who to nominate for an employment relationship.
Certainly downsides, like missing better candidates you’ve never met and a bias against introverted or socially anxious candidates. That said, not a phenomenon I imagine changing much. So many applicants for every post - an IRL filter is effective at, if nothing else, shrinking the pool significantly.
I work a job that requires a highschool diploma and that offers advancement opportunities and people at my level and higher are younger than me.
In fact, my manager two levels above me is quite a bit younger than me and he started at the most basic level years before me, so I guess these opportunities are open to people younger than me... Huh...
Also, very funny that you're taking to a millennial like they were a boomer...
Not a manager, just someone who did exactly what I said, worked a bit harder for a year and a half, moved two steps up the ladder and now sitting cozy doing exactly what I'm paid for and nothing more as I don't want to move any higher because it would mean being in a position of authority.
Do you really think I would tell you to aim to reach a point where you're happy and then start to work your wage if I was a manager?
He said to the guy telling others to reach the point where they're happy with what they're doing and to then work their wage and nothing more.
If I was on my knees in front of management I would be telling everyone to just keep working harder forever, not to stop doing it once they don't have or want advancement opportunities.
Then work your fucking wage and that's it then, don't bitch when others decide to put a bit more effort in order to move ahead if you're expecting to be offered the same opportunity without showing that you're actually able to do more than what is asked of you.
If I see someone eating the same meal every day I will come to the conclusion that they're either unable or unwilling to cook something else so I won't ask them to cook me something else.
No matter where you want to achieve something, you have to show initiative for it to happen.
Right now we're talking about work and they say they won't work harder for advancement? Then they won't get advancement.
If we were on a DIY forum and we were talking about building a fence and they were saying "I won't take time from my day to make it and no way I'll pay someone to do it for me." my reaction would be the same, show some initiative or don't complain if shit doesn't happen.
People can complain about nepotism and jobs not going to those who deserve it, but they can't also complain about jobs going to those who decide to put in the work while they're doing the bare minimum (i.e. jobs going to those who show they deserve it because they take action and show that they're willing and able to do more).
What you call "quiet quitting" IS putting in the work. You even said it yourself - it's doing exactly what is expected of you.
What you call "showing initiative" is allowing yourself to be ruled by the whims of a wannabe master. If they wanted you to do more, they should have put that in the job description. And if there's still work to be done, they should have hired another person. 1 can't do the work of 2.
If your goal is to stay in the position you're in then do what you're paid for and nothing else, but don't complain you're not offered the same opportunities if you see someone showing they're ready and able to do more get promoted, no shit people will assume you can't do more if you don't show them you're able to, that applies to everything in life, not just work.
You won't get stronger by always curling the same dumbbell for the same number of reps. No one will just take your word for it if you say you're able to run a marathon in 4 hours if they always see you sitting on the couch playing video games.
Hell, with your mentality why go to school? I mean, who are they to rate your work? Why should you need to prove to anyone that your understand what you were taught? You know you do and that's what's important and people should realize that and offer you a job based on your confidence that you're the best surgeon in your country! Right?
I see people in this thread complaining about nepotism but when I mention meritocracy they're just as mad. Well then, what is your fucking solution?
It was always a stupid fucking term that equates doing a job with quitting.
Not increasing pay isn't quit firing, because there is no firing. It is just businesses being stingy.
Edit: Guess I wasn't clear enough that I am responding to the general statement that not giving raises is constructive dismissal, and didn't add a footnote that not giving raises to specific people could be part of constructive dismissal. Nuance is hard.
I feel like meeting that to a legal level is a stretch. Minor cost of living raises that don't meet inflation doesn't rise to that level in my uneducated understanding
Not increasing pay with inflation is a pay cut because your pay is literally worth less without it.
In a sane world, if the fed is dictating the money supply, with their actions directly impacting inflation, every workers pay should be indexed to inflation. Same goes for taxation, welfare payments, etc. Companies raise their prices regardless.
I am not placing blame, just observing that News Companies still have staff and could be on the side of the Capitalists when it comes to worker rights.
Edit: I think I understand. I agree, not all staff writers (or any?) could be in a position to refuse the editor when they say "write me a piece on quiet quitting".
Ahh, flexibility definitely compensates for a good bit of opportunity cost. Know people who stay in easier remote jobs to avoid the responsibilities and demands that come with moving to certain higher-paid positions.
There's also freedom from corporate culture, which I have had enough of in the past. Overall I think I'm happier keeping my perfectly tolerable job in its place and earning less, though I can see how others make a different choice and would negatively judge what I do.
I've got my feelers out there but I'm gonna stick it out here for another year - currently working on a certification to switch to a higher-paid position and the company is paying for it
How is taking a pay cut when there's massive inflation even remotely understandable? Inflation means that they need to pay you more, not less; your costs are rising.
Businesses don't care about your costs. They care about paying as little as possible for as good a quality as they can.
Same way you don't care if your grocery store mega chain got hacked and lost $300 million, that's not your problem, if they raise the price of bread you'll go somewhere else.
I fail to see how we are responsible for the emotional well being of our management. Did I do my job? Yep! Did I do it well? Yep! Stand and deliver thy raise O manager, or face the wrath of my competing job offer.
I can't wait until AI hits these middle managers that were just enough good at their jobs to earn a promotion and now spend their days sending angry emails to the people that actually do the work, while collecting more income than the workers... 🖕
"Quiet quitting" is a bullshit term meaning to do your job but nothing above or beyond that. Joshua Fluke has done multiple videos on this BS, and at this point there are plenty of other idiotic terms thrown around to try and make workers look bad.
