In the past year or so, people started writing about the phenomenon of quiet quitting. It isn’t new, but it somehow became trendy as more people are doing this. This isn’t something I care about as much. People often describe me as a workaholic which is pretty accurate, and I love it. But I totally get the problem that triggers quiet quitting and its root is in a lack of loyalty. A cursory reader might think I’m blaming the employee for lack of loyalty, I am. But loyalty is a two-way street and some employees are merely reflecting something that we’ve been conditioned to accept for the past few decades.
Back in the days when I formed my consulting company and later on Codename One, I read pretty much every business management book I could find. Back in 2014 I read a rare book in that genre where I cringed at every page. I don’t enjoy reading business management books. This isn’t a pleasant read. But here I literally cringed at so much of the sage advice from Mr. Horowitz. Notice I don’t say the advice is wrong or even that it’s bad. I don’t think he’s a bad person for giving it either. I think this advice produces its exact desired intention, fast growth at any cost.
The fuel for this fast growth is people. They get burned and cast aside like the fumes of a jet engine. The expectation is fast turnover, by the time the person is “burned out” we’ll replace them anyway with a fresh “expert” to fit the current stage of the company. This approach to building companies wildly over emphasizes transferable skills while under evaluating pretty much everything else.
Company Values
Another book I read well before that was “built to last”, it has its own faults and problems but that’s a different story. One of the core ideas explored in the book was the idea of corporate values that are listed as a set of principles. They claim that great companies had codified their core values early on. This supposedly shaped their corporate DNA and helped them become great.
Back when I read it I always felt this was a load of BS. I don’t subscribe to such frivolous management drivel, but I’ve started rethinking that recently. I was always in the camp of interviewing people as a conversation and a process. Hiring “good people” is more about finding the right “fit” for the specific team. But how do we know we all share compatible values?
Even if we don’t, how do we align so at least “on the job” we can act consistently?
This came back to me recently. I think such values are indeed a crucial piece in shaping the right team. I know which value would be the first on my list when I form my next company: Loyalty.
Corporate Loyalty not That Way
Jobs often expect loyalty from us. I try to give it as much as reasonably possible. It doesn’t mean I don’t have open to other options on LinkedIn. It doesn’t mean I don’t demand a raise and imply I’ll walk when I think I deserve one. Those don’t imply disloyalty in any way. I won’t go to work for a direct competitor. I also wouldn’t want to work for a company that would pouch me as a direct competitor. This is the point I’m getting at.
Loyalty is given. Not asked. A company needs to declare loyalty as its value, not one it demands from the employees. E.g. when an employee makes a mistake. Even a big one. That employee shouldn’t be fired instantly. Hell, instant firings shouldn’t be a thing. A single manager or even the CEO shouldn’t have the right. Someone having a bad day shouldn’t impact their future livelihood.
A corporation should stand behind an employee who made a mistake. More than once. People need to feel secure in their jobs. When a corporation just blindly fires and hires they end up with jaded employees who don’t care. This affects the product and the company in a way that no corporate nonsense can wash away. The customers end up with an inferior service or product. A disposable employee or one that’s just stepping through, won’t bother.
Therefore, loyalty to employees should outweigh the loyalty to the customers. The customer doesn’t always come first. We need to tone that down. We can’t service the customer if our house isn’t in order. By backing our employees, these employees will give the customer better service and a better product.
I worked at very large corporations, in most cases I had managers that represented these values and I enjoyed working with them. It’s an uncommon experience compared to the typical corporate nonsense. But the thing about corporations is the constant restructuring, you can’t develop trust and good working conditions, without building that culture from the top-down. It’s also hard to plug this culture into a company that’s already too big.
Quiet Quitting
I get why people “quiet quit”. Why show loyalty to a company that will fire you in an instant. Why go “above and beyond” when the company won’t do the same for you. I think most people just looked for a new job and would switch jobs. In normal times that’s the right thing to do. But in these times, starting a new job with economic uncertainty is a risk.
Quiet quitting becomes an easy way out. Treat the job like it treats you, instead of being unemployed and looking for a job. This seems like something you can just turn on or off. But unfortunately it’s a state of mind. Once you think this way, it would be hard to get back to a positive workspace attitude. If you don’t get that, then good places won’t want to hire you. Can you keep “quiet quitting” for the rest of your life?
I personally can’t. That’s obviously a privileged stance of an individual who can spend years “unemployed” with only a minor impact on my lifestyle. I understand that not everyone can afford that privilege, and I’m thankful for it. But if you find yourself in this situation, I urge you to remain out of your comfort zone and seek alternative employment ASAP.
If you’re a manager who has the sense that employees do that. I suggest throwing them a lifeline. While you can’t change corporate policy, you can use the one on ones (which hopefully you have) to communicate with the employee. Have an actual conversation and try to help. Don’t talk about work. Talk about helping that employee, financially, emotionally and be genuine. Don’t do it with the goal of getting an employee to perform. Don’t expect loyalty, give it. Repeatedly. It will come back to you. This will positively impact your future employment opportunities along the way.
Top comments (56)
This whole "quiet quitting" thing baffles me. What I've seen it described as is the same way I've worked the vast majority of the time at every job I've had over 27 years.
In one of my first jobs, our boss made a big point of us never working outside the hours we were supposed to. They believed totally that work and life should be kept separate, with the latter always taking priority if there were conflicts. I've carried that with me and pretty much stuck to it. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't understand why you'd want to do otherwise.
You work to live, not live to work.
This attitude is common in western Europe but in the US "success" in your work means more than that. It's an external sign of your (religious) virtue as Max Weber first identified
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protes...
Of course many people do that without thinking about the religious background nowadays because it's deeply embedded in the culture
I tell my anxious juniors all the time when they're talking about shifting their vacation because something went wrong at work or doing some extra hours because they really want to impress: "The only reward for saying yes to everything is burnout".
I 100% agree with that. A loyal company would force you to take vacation and won't bug you on vacation. Having a normal vacation isn't quite quitting.
I leave work every day around 3pm and my boss is 100% OK with that. I need to spend time with my kids. I make up for this later and they get me.
"Quiet Quitting" is a phrase used to get people back into the office after COVID and nothing else.
Middle management and executives think employees are remote working as a result of the pandemic, but in reality, the pandemic just accelerated a shift that was on the horizon.
IMO remote working is here to stay, and people can throw around as many new phrases as they want, but it won't change the fact that people are more productive from home.
Edit: Totally agree with @estahn too. Commutes are a total waste of time now that we have technology to work from home. Not to mention how much cars pollute the environment.
The fact is that some people are more productive at home, some are not. Stating anything else as "a fact" is an evangelism. And evangelism for working from home is no better than evangelism for working from office.
It's kind of pointless to argue with employers about whether remote work improves productivity; at the end of the day, that's the employers problem to figure out.
Making your employees show up at the office is an additional cost, either directly (better pay) or indirectly (employee satisfaction, retention, etc.) and any company needs to figure out for itself whether on-site working is worth paying the price.
The red herring about productivity is just a cheap attempt of getting workers caught up in a conversation about a "common goal" of increasing productivity that they shouldn't be caring about in the first place.
What the conversation should look like is: I drive X hours to work each day, so you will have to pay me Y more to get me to do that. Plain and simple.
By that logic everyone should have got their wages cut during the pandemic as they not had to drive those hours to work anymore.
When I first read "Quiet Quitting" I had assumed it must mean something more like doing no work at all during remote work hours; imagine my surprise when I read what it actually means.
I highly recommend reading or listening to the audiobook "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" By Daniel H. Pink.
It analyzes the science behind what motivates people and speaks to how most "management" in business has been out of touch with the reality of it for decades.
There are a number of case studies. All of them fascinating, and It's written from the perspective of viewing the ideas & practices of "management" as an old operation system in desperate need of an upgrade.
After my experiences working in corporate, then listening to the audiobook several times, I understood the truth of it and haven't even been back to that setting since. I've transitioned to 100% contract/freelance and I seriously doubt I'll ever return to a corporate position. If I do, it will be me interviewing them to determine their worth as an employer, not the other way around.
This right here is the core takeaway of your article IMO.
"But the thing about corporations is the constant restructuring, you can’t develop trust and good working conditions, without building that culture from the top-down. It’s also hard to plug this culture into a company that’s already too big."
No matter how good the people you work with can be, there are always changes made by inept decision-makers that can turn a great work environment into a nightmare. Always wanting to "fix" what isn't broken without any input from those affected most. Large companies that don't have a good culture baked into their mission statement and practices from the get-go can never change their culture for the better, or do so at glacial paces.
Quiet quitting is about decoupling loyalty from my ability to perform well at my job. Most employers want you to be believe that you cannot succeed lest you are loyal. That anything but loyalty is toxic. That just isn’t true and never has been. Loyalty [in the workplace] is a currency that lacks return on investment and people are finally waking up to that.
I feel loyalty is something I give for my own sake. This is similar to my view of Karma. I'm not a believer in that, I think I need to be a good person for my own sake. It makes me feel better spiritually and more productive as a person.
I can't compartmentalize these things. I don't think of this as a currency for which I get an immediate or even an eventual return. Its reward is inherent for me.
Wow this was a surprisingly interesting, nuanced and mature analysis. Thanks a lot.
Also it reminded me of "Exit, Voice, Loyalty" from Albert Hirschman
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voic...
Exactly. Abusive employers call it "Quiet Quitting". But it really should be called "Doing your Job" 🤷.
That's a great insight. I don't like the term "quiet quitting" at all. It's all about doing your job as prescribed, and not more than you're supposed to.
My biggest problem is when employers take you on for a certain salary, and then fail to deliver inflationary pay rises when you're doing the job they hired you for year in year out to a good standard. That figure is, in real terms, shrinking in value every year. They're effectively cutting your pay & hoping you'll not notice & that you'll put up with it. The past few years in the UK inflation was fairly low, but now that Brexit and the pandemic and the Ukraine war are all hitting at once, it feels like we're being mocked, especially when the boss is driving a brand new Aston Martin & you're just hoping your 14 year old Audi doesn't throw its balance shaft drive chain. Inflationary pay rises for good work should be the norm. The company definitely puts its fees up year on year, and they lose so many good experienced workers to other companies by this shortsighted approach. If it takes £3-4K to hire a new developer, why not give half to two thirds that money to the developer you already have, to keep their loyalty and engagement? Worker exploitation is a sure-fire way to get worker disengagement & knowledge rot.
Spoken like an employer. We can talk about loyalty when the business is a worker co-op or collective.
I'm an employer and also an employee. Notice I specifically start and highlight the fact that employers need to be loyal to employees first. For a while. For this to actually work.
I agree, labor unions are a great thing. Not necessarily in the programmer community where the demand is very high and individual contracts offer pretty compelling rewards. In our specific niche people switch jobs too quickly to form a union.
What specifically did I say that was problematic?
Welp, without giving you a list, the core of the issue is I think you're failing to account for the power dynamic involved. There is no amount of "loyalty" an employer can demonstrate that will offset that fact that they exploit the labor of individuals for profit. There are no acts of supposed loyalty that hold any meaning while workers have no say in how a business is run and how the value of their labor is distributed. It's lip service to a two way street where you're the only driver.
Fair. But let me ask you this: if you work for a terrible employer that fires in an instant. Has toxic culture and is overall terrible. Is that the same as working in a company where employees are respected?
Companies where we have 1 on 1 with a manager who actually listens. Where when going gets tough, the brass takes a pay cut instead of firing. When a customer complains the manager backs the employee, etc.
To me both companies are different. Yes, I display loyalty to my manager when I worked in a company similar to the latter. I get a lot of recruiter interest from some companies, I flat out reject those companies because I don't want to work in bad environments.
Again: loyalty is individual. Not to a company. To a manager, to a team. But since it's something that's top down, the corporate environment that breeds that team needs to be supportive of this and facilitate such an environment.
👀👀👀
"Jobs often expect loyalty from us."
"A company needs to declare loyalty as its value..."
"A corporation should stand behind an employee..."
"... you can’t develop trust and good working conditions, without building that culture from the top-down."
"Why show loyalty to a company that will fire you in an instant... Quiet quitting becomes an easy way out"
An awful lot of focus on company / corp in article supposedly about individual loyalties. In the context of "quiet quitting" an individual loyalty should have no bearing on another individual's actions in this regard unless the loyalty is to a person serving as a representative of the company, which is the only entity in this scenario that stands to gain from a shift in this behavior. Your distinction is meaningless in this context.
Because loyalty starts from the corporation even though it isn't directed towards it. The managers I had that presented those excellent qualities were supported by a corporation that helped them. They were backed by corporate policies that enabled this. Their managers show similar loyalty to them and it goes up all the way to the C suite.
If I'm loyal to the manager I'll go above and beyond for that person and I know they will do the same for me since they have in the past.
Uh huh. So you’re “going above and beyond” for that person acting as an agent of the corporation. This is a meaningless distinction.
That's your opinion and I respect that. I feel corporations are basically just a collection of people. They aren't a democracy though, but they can do a lot of good when they're run right. I agree that especially in USA, the incentives are to run corporations "badly".
Personally I'm a very left leaning socialist. I'm pro union. Pro workers rights. Pro democracy and progressive taxation. I'm not against corporations though. I think they can be great when we have good regulators on top of them and good employees within them.
If you're for corporations you're not a socialist. It's in the literal definition OMG.
Not the definition. Sweden, Finland, etc. have multiple large corporations and are socialist democracies. You're thinking about communism.
Social democracy != socialism you absolute liberal.
I think you're projecting stuff that I very specifically didn't say. I never told anyone what they should do.
I did advise that companies should improve their attitude to facilitate better attitude from developers. Whether developers choose to do that or not. That's entirely up to them.