There is an evolving nature of the employment relationship. I have written about “quiet quitting“ (September 2022). This essentially equates to the employee doing only what is required and lacking any ambition or even tolerance for additional assignments or workload. That concept has been framed in the press as a generational construct, largely deriding the young. However, I have witnessed it throughout a long and varied course of occupations. The remarkable "new" aspect of the perspective is its labeling.
I was surprised to run across a piece in my news feed from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) which discusses the potentiality for the opposite or inverse by management. This is being labeled “quiet firing.“ It is essentially the divesting of function and responsibility, in a manner intended to remove or minimize any sense of contribution or productivity for an employee. The end result is a quiet resignation born of frustration or hurt. From the employer's standpoint, it is perceived as less litigation–probable. The BBC article offers specific examples: "Eliza had effectively been frozen out by her employer."
That the BBC authors see a relationship between these two concepts is frustrating and somewhat confusing. Those who are “quiet quitters“ are not seeking to sever a relationship. They are not inviting untoward action by another, as in they are not seeking to be fired. They are merely limiting the scope and extent of their contribution to that which they have been hired to perform. It demonstrates a lack of motivation perhaps, a lack of ambition perhaps, but it is not intended as a relationship terminator. The "quiet firing," on the contrary seems specifically so.
The “quiet firing“ is described as a process in which frustration of the employee is at least anticipated, if not intended. By altering the social construct of the working environment, by eliminating any emotional reward from productivity or activity, the choir at firing might easily be interpreted as an intentional and animosity alternative. CNBC recently claimed that "83% of workers have seen or experienced quiet firing." It describes the practice bluntly: a “passive-aggressive approach to performance management,” and claims it may be delivered "both deliberately and inadvertently."
I have been privileged to work with a great many excellent managers, supervisors, and leaders. I have unfortunately been cursed to have experienced a handful who lack any empathy, tact, discretion, or skill. One that I remember with great affection, was once aptly described. Having sat through a largely pointless meeting, this manager had departed when another attendee voiced an observation regarding that manager's somewhat tone-deaf and clueless perspective. Another coworker looking around the room encapsulated it with: “he is without a doubt a blunt object.“ That resonated with me. That manager was in fact a hammer, persistently in search of a nail.
CNBC offers seven warning signs that might make you think twice about your position. The absence of salary increases, managerial feedback, lack of engagement, being singled out in meetings, having ideas disregarded, the absence of challenges or opportunities, and being "left out of meetings." Perhaps everyone has experienced one or more of these. I have personally experienced each of them at various times, but when you have been around as long as I have, there is a certain inevitability of experiences. It is likely possible that any of them might occur innocuously or innocently. Some constellation or pattern might be a cause for real concern.
The authors also suggest methodologies for documenting your perceptions, and reassure that such treatment is "a management issue, not yours." There is specific focus on the special focus management must deliver in order to retain Millenial and Gen Z employees. But, is there really a generational difference in the basics of mutual respect, engagement, leadership, and productivity? Are the generational references merely excuses or distractions? Do managers or employees hold prejudice or bias that might be ameliorated through communication and experience? Is it worth a try?
A Public Broadcasting System (PBS) article acknowledges that the impact of such management techniques “can take a huge toll on someone’s mental well-being." It stresses that the aggressions may be very subtle and one might react by questioning oneself. It suggests that there might be various "micro-exclusionary behaviors." It echos some of the CNBC suggestions for employees, but concludes an employee may face two choices:
- "change your mindset around what you’re experiencing and try to make your job something you can tolerate."
- "simply leave and join the job-switchers who are making those higher wages."
The implication is clear if indeed it is an implication. There are employees that are not thriving, or who are at least not evidencing ambition or enthusiasm. They are labeled "quiet quitters," and are criticized. There are employers that are not straightforward for whatever reason and elect to push employees toward resignation through immature, passive/aggressive gamesmanship in the workplace. There are, I have known some.
The fact is, however, that neither of these is new. At least to some degree, they are not two sides to the same coin. One is a lack of ambition or motivation and thereby delivery of just what is asked for, nothing more. The other is a planned and implemented displacement or discomfort designed to force someone into a departure. They are not the same, and the similar labeling is misleading.
The world of work is challenging and can lean inexorably to grey hair, frustration, and exhaustion. In the broadest sense, neither "quiet quitting" or "quiet firing" is the ideal that is expected or sought. But, in the end, it happens. In the best of times, it happens. But what of the worst of times? Does either paradigm increase in the wake of a workplace injury, some period of absence, and a return-to-work attempt? Are employees in that posture ambitious and eager? Are managers engaging and welcoming? Are the two malicious maladies worthy of thought and consideration in our workers' compensation community?
