gaslighting
noun
gas·light·ing ˈgas-ˌlī-tiŋ
: psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator
It's companies gaslighting us that we are either looking for new roles, or we are working hard to make more money/ask for a raise or else we'll find a new role.
Managers see both these things as "not being part of the fam", but really they just want to take more and give less while playing the victim.
Because people cannot like you and you still feel obligated to earn your paycheck and you have honor. Unlike the dip shits you are quitting from because they are drunken assholes that can't see past their whiney little emergencies.
Yeah I always thought ‘quiet quitters’ referred to people checking out of their jobs emotionally and doing just barely enough to not get fired, so actually underperforming, not because they couldn’t do better but because they stopped caring at some point. In that sense they have already quit, quietly. But now it seems that anyone who doesn’t go above and beyond can be a ‘quiet quitter’? Doesn’t make much sense to me.
Nah, quit quitting is just the new term for it. Boomers called it working to the letter of your contract. Quit quitting isn’t doing less than your job duties. It’s simply refusing to bend over backwards and give your employer all of your free time. You don’t take on extra responsibility. You don’t come in early or stay late. You come in on time, do your exact job duties as written, then you go home.
But this terrifies employers, who have historically relied on manipulation and coercion to get employees to work beyond the scope of what they were hired for. So they’ve started calling it “quit quitting” in an effort to rebrand it as something negative.
I've known people who are the best workers on their team, but put in like 40% effort. Does that count as quiet quitting? IDK.
To be clear, I'm not excusing the article, which is a bad joke. That being said, there are plenty of people out there that are really good at their jobs, but don't put in full effort. I don't have a problem with these people at all (really who does 100% effort all of the time?).
They're just toeing the line for their corporate masters. Capitalists want 150% effort for 100% pay since the profit margin on that extra 50% alone is huge.
They don't just want your work output; they want your soul.
They want the old days where people were 100% believers in their jobs at places like WeWork, Uber, Tesla, and Facebook...before the general public became disillusioned with tech companies specifically and companies in general more broadly. They want "evangelists" and the belief of the mid-Obama years back...
The only problem is that many have looked at things over the last ten years and found that the euphoric promises made by the management of companies were lies.
You are right, I assummed it was like the onion, but appears the irishtimes business section plays to the businesses it attracts ( of shitty companies avoiding taxes in their own country)
How do I get a "career" that pays more than minimum wage, there's some kind of occult mix of words and body language I'm just not getting. Am I autistic? I don't care.
I had an employee review with my manager this week, at my request. She told me she wasn't comfortable uptraining me right now even though they badly need the help in the position I asked to be crosstrained for, because they'd rather hire someone just for the role; but we could talk about it again in two months. After a little digging, I found that (A) they can't afford to lose me from my lower-paid role and (2) they know I'm looking for another job and don't want to train me until I demonstrate I'm planning to stay.
My response is that (A) well you're definitely gonna lose me now and (2) I'm definitely no longer willing to stay.
I asked questions during the review. My.manager was evasive but it wasn't hard to put together. In the restaurant industry, everyone is hiring right now as they expand for patio season. That won't be the case as much in two months and we both know it; if I'm going to leave it'll likely be in the next two weeks.
If they communicated better, and offered the training/position/salary increase as incentive to stay, that would (imo) be a better course of action. This just feels rude and incompetent
Well I mean I am awful with people, but this problem even I could solve. They had about 3 possible holes to fit the peg through, but no, they just threw the toybox out of the window.
MAYBE OP is just awful at their job. But if they wanted to keep him where he was, that makes little sense.
Additional info: I typically work the least desirable shifts because of family obligations. Me leaving this position or even dropping to part time would leave a hole in the schedule, and she's very lazy when it comes to the schedule. I'm offering to take the same shift in a different role.
Similar situation on my end awhile back. Location had begun losing people. I was in a bottom rung management position, more title than authority, and the team knew it. However, I was also the only manager willing to be consistently on later shifts. Due to pretty intense compartmentalization issues were often isolated and fixed by managers within each department. Except later on at night I was alone with a smaller team. This presented a bit of a situation:
If a problem came up I was expected to text or call a manager. As you can imagine, they did not often reply or pick up.
Many problems require rather immediate solutions.
I wasn't being trained to receive the skills necessary to deal with many situations so I began enabling key members of the evening team and standing in front of them if mistakes were made, acting as a wall.
Due to all of this, and a lot of work being handled by a smaller team, (and some issues going consistently ignored by senior management) we saw several people leave. In the middle of all this I was isolated and made out to be the reason for some systemic issues, told I could no longer take the initiative to help, and the team caught wind.
Eventually I began looking for other jobs. When I let my bosses know boy were they surprised. By the time I left one manager had claimed to have started having anxiety attacks during their shift, the whole unreachable during situations thing became a problem for upper, and well...long story short shit and fan began to meet.
If a problem came up I was expected to text or call a manager. As you can imagine, they did not often reply or pick up.
Many problems require rather immediate solutions.
These are not your problems. If management has enacted a procedure that doesn't work, don't change it or you will be blamed for any failure.
Send a few emails to document your opinion that there are problems. Otherwise, do exactly what was recommended. You want the policy to fail. Don't try to improve it without management support.
I learned this in my previous job. We were a city-owned theater, which came with all of the trappings of government bureaucracy. But we were also open after hours, and did a lot of technical work for our shows. The city’s IT would log off on Friday at 5pm, and not log back in again until 8am on Monday. We were one of the few departments that was open over the weekend and after hours, (often until 1 or 2am when loading shows out.)
So naturally, we butted heads with IT a lot. Because we didn’t have access to change things we often needed to change. Whenever we needed to urgently troubleshoot something before a show started, our hands were almost always tied by IT. And IT’s given solution was always the same. Submit a ticket, and we’ll get to it when we get to it. But when you have 2000 people waiting on a show to start at 7pm on a Saturday, you can’t wait for IT to get back into the office on Monday.
Historically, the solution was to use our own gear. Every technician had their own personal laptop, so they could use that instead of the city laptop. But this caused issues of its own, because we couldn’t connect to any of the city-controlled gear as the city network was MAC filtered, (and IT obviously wasn’t going to allow our personal devices to connect to their network.) We worked with what we had, worked around problems we couldn’t fix, and it was a lot of extra stress for no extra benefit; The higher-ups didn’t see a problem because the shows were never visibly impacted. And IT didn’t see a problem, because the higher-ups weren’t complaining.
Eventually, we just started letting it burn. Shows suddenly started 15 to 30 minutes late, (which was unheard of in a building where even 2 minutes late was considered unacceptable.) Clients didn’t get equipment they had paid for, because it was broken on Friday evening and we couldn’t troubleshoot it over the weekend. Projectors didn’t have video feeds, because techs stopped using their personal laptops for shows. Et cetera, et cetera. Instead, the techs simply started noting every time they wanted to fix something but couldn’t because their hands were tied.
And wouldn’t you know it, the system got fixed. IT was suddenly required to keep someone on call for weekend tickets. Because when people stop propping up the broken system, all of the flaws get discovered and heads roll until shit gets fixed.
Somewhat related, advice about being irreplaceable is bad for this exact reason. The more replaceable you are, the easier to promote you and take longer vacations. Sure you might be able to get fired more easily, but most managers won't put forth the effort.
Not trying to be an asshole, but this is privilege in action. For low paying jobs, managers will fire you at the drop of a hat. Jobs that pay better are more secure.
I remember doing self assessments before reviews, I just gave myself 5s because they were going to change everything to 3.5 anyhow unless you invented cold fusion and sucked everyone's dick
Well, Mr Chalupapocalypse, your breakthrough on cold fusion is really profitable for the company, but the VP of marketing was disappointed you didn't cup his balls during last week's blowjob session, so...best we can do is a 3.9
I see a lot of people complaining about the term "quiet quitting." In this thread there are people saying that that's exactly what they want in a job, that that's what they've been doing since before the term existed, etc..
I'm curious what other succinct terms people would use to describe the act of doing the bare minimum and not engaging beyond what is required and asked for.
I'm asking because I also dislike the term "quiet quitting", and I know such an activity has existed forever. At the same time it does seem useful because I can't think of a succinct way to describe what it explicitly describes. In the past it seems like such a behavior was implicit, but with modern "engagement" and "hustle" and "110%" work culture, it seems like we need a more explicit term.
So, is there another term we can use that people don't hate as much?
That implies malice though, which I don't like. What's malicious about doing exactly what we agreed I'm paid to do, nothing more, and leaving when the whistle blows? In a job market where promotions are a pipe dream and equitable raises not far from it, why should I waste my time trying to impress someone that won't reciprocate?
Quiet quitting is actually listed as a subheading on the work-to-rule Wikipedia page I linked, so I guess it's the non-malicious variation of your standard work to rule protest. If you look at the See Also section, there's some interesting related things. I think the Chinese Tang Ping suits exactly what you're saying too
I'm curious what other succinct terms people would use to describe the act of doing the bare minimum and not engaging beyond what is required and asked for.
If you buy a monitor from Amazon, do you expect that they will thrown in another one for free?
What about if you hire a plumber to come fixe a leaky pipe, do you expect them to install a new set of water taps for free while they're at it?
Do you go to McDonalds and expect a posh table waiter, and a complimentary bottle of Beaujoulais wine along with lightly seasoned oregano and olive oil garlick bread, for the price of a Big Mac?
So why expect that workers will do more work than what they are being paid for?!
If it's only a business relationship, as those very same managers treat it when it's time for layoffs or when giving below inflation raises because the job market isn't tight and they can easilly find replacements, then it's only fair that workers too treaty it as only a business relationship and only provide the level of service they're being paid for.
If they want the haute cuisine Michellin Starred service they're gonna have to pay more than McDonald prices.
The whole calling it "quiet quiting" is just a reflection of the moneyed class wanting to, as the Brits would call it, eat the cake and still have it afterwards.
high quality working. individuals really need to lower the bar. when I was young the expectation when hiring minum wage was if you got someone who showed up, on time, consistantly and was not drunk or on drugs. that was a high quality hire. workers need to learn to slack like the 80's.
I’m curious what other succinct terms people would use to describe the act of doing the bare minimum and not engaging beyond what is required and asked for.
Perhaps these aren't punchy, but that's also why we're stuck with awful things like "quiet quitting". But these capture the correct (IMO) sentiment:
"Adhering to the employment contract."
"Doing my job."
"Meeting documented expectations."
"Following management's lead."
The last one is important. There's a concept of "modeling" in terms of providing strong examples of allowed/expected behavior in the workplace. If management really wants people to go above and beyond, that change starts with a show of the same on their part. I would bet that a lot of frustrated managers are themselves not putting in the extra effort, or do not make a show of it.
Moreover, the boss now has to work a little harder and negotiate performance goals that track with increased performance. Employees aren't going to do that themselves anymore.
I had basically this exact conversation with my supervisor last week. She was like, "I like to have ___ done by Thursdays," because I was sick on Thursday and said I'd do it first thing Friday morning. So I said, "Ok, so is the deadline for this task Thursdays then? Because that's never been communicated to me." And she said, "Well, I like to have it done by Thursdays." Holy fuck, JUST TELL ME HOW MANY PIECES OF FLAIR I NEED.
Anyway, I'm looking for a new job because I can't work in a place that wants to penalize people for not living up to expectations they didn't know existed. My entire review (first one in 2 1/2 years) was a series of "Remember this thing from months ago? Well we didn't like how you did that but we never said anything and just sat on it until now." Cool, thanks for setting me up to fail, appreciate that.
Exactly. I've always known my boss was great at most of her job but not very good at people management (because I don't think she particularly wants to do it), but being blindsided with things it's too late to even address was so demoralizing. What the heck am I supposed to do about a phone call from December about an issue that's been long since resolved?
Unfortunately all you can do is try to thicken your skin and attempt to "manage upwards".
"I appreciate the feedback and I'll bear that in mind in the future, but there's nothing I can do about this months later. Next time let me know when I still have an opportunity to correct the issue and I'll gladly course-correct."
And refuse to sign the review. Be specific that you don't accept being penalized for mistakes you made months before you were told the rule.
You can push back while being polite and professional in some places, so it's worth a shot if you're already being shit on or are on the way out.
If you've tried it and gotten nowhere though, just disengage and try to stop caring so much.
Your manager's failure to communicate is their problem, not yours.
"Jill, I'm afraid we have a problem. Your quality of work is very high, as always. But you don't look enough like your job isn't soul crushing. I'm not saying you look like you're bored out of your mind or that I think working here is depriving you of your will to live. I'm just saying that there are times when you're not smiling like a completely unhinged person and that makes me question whether you really want to be here."
Reminds me of my art professor's story about getting her doctorate, in which a bunch of tenured professors came together to review her work to give her the degree. One professor disagreed with giving her doctorate because apparently she didn't look like she had a tough time getting it. That sent my art professor over the edge because she'd worked so hard and suffered so much for it so she started crying in front of the professors and told them she wasn't going to bother getting her doctorate anymore and that she was quitting right there and then. The other tenured professors were quick to convince the other to change their mind and eventually gave the degree, but my art professor still remembers how shitty it was to decide something so important to her on the basis that she suffered much less than her peers in producing something good or better work.
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.
