English Version | Status: quiet quitting

This text could be a movie. It would be called: In Search of the Lost Law of Compensation. According to the dictionary, "compensation" is defined as: the act or effect of compensating; balance; equity; proportion. Without having to rack our brains, we can deftly conclude that in the world of work - the subject under discussion - all those words lead to the same premise: I work, therefore I am compensated. Or: I work more, I get paid more; I work less, I get paid less. Something like that. The problem is that this arithmetic doesn't respect the rules of logic and the result is a (sometimes abysmal) imbalance between what you give and what you get. Let's see: quiet quitting is neither cynicism nor a feeling of apathy. It's not about a lack of professionalism or a sense of responsibility. Much less is it a term that rhymes with disqualification. The digital phenomenon that has emerged with the end of the COVID-19 pandemic and the return to "service" is not a brave act of rebellion. Quite the opposite, quiet quitting is embracing a certain relaxation. Translated into Portuguese as "passive resignation", quiet quitting comes as a response to the basic need to be paid (compensated?) for the work done. Consistent remuneration is demanded. They demand respect. Decades after the idea that showing service was part of the job was established, the so-called Generation Z burst onto the market. More honest with themselves and with life - and with very little appetite for eating crows - these young people were the instigators of that basic punch on the desk. Passively giving up is no big deal; you're not giving up anything but what doesn't belong to you - the extra work, the extra hours, the layers of "jerseys" you've worn over the years you've been "in the house." You do (only) what you're being paid for and you're not obliged to do any more than that. Quiet quitting is also about learning to say "no" whenever necessary. In short, kicking a big "no" to the act of giving in to a company that doesn't give back. Passively giving up expresses a renunciation of the current work culture that "proposes" that you "take up the cudgels" Now is getting to be a bit much, isn't it? - and this is exactly the kind of reflection that those who go into quiet quitting mode make at some point in their professional lives.

Speaking to The Guardian, Maria Kordowicz, associate professor of organizational behavior at the University of Nottingham, England, and head of the center for interprofessional education and learning, describes quiet quitting as "doing the minimum necessary to survive at work, without letting it impose on other areas of our lives." The same text mentions a global report by Gallup for the year 2022 which shows that only 9% of workers in the UK feel engaged or enthusiastic about their work. A National Health Service (NHS) staff survey carried out in the fall of 2021, meanwhile, showed that morale had dropped from 6.1 to 5.8 on a scale of 1 to 10, and staff engagement had fallen from 7.0 to 6.8. "Since the pandemic, people's relationship with work has been studied in various ways and, as a rule, the results for all professions point to the fact that yes, the way people relate to their work has changed," added Kordowicz. For Kordowicz, what may be at the root of this reality is "a desire on the part of employees to strike a balance between work and personal life, such as not working overtime or no longer putting relentless productivity above their well-being." In a text published on the Very Well Mind website, Paula Allen, global leader and senior vice president of research and well-being at LifeWorks (a human resources technology and services company), points out some of the signs that can be indicative of someone who has adopted the quiet quitting status: "Says 'no' to tasks that are outside the original job description; doesn't respond to emails or messages outside of work hours; leaves work on time; is less emotionally engaged with work; shows less room for 'overachievement'; shows less interest in going above and beyond in order to secure a promotion in the company. " Basically, passive quitting is just a new name for an old concept: lower employee commitment. Inevitably, we are faced with the dilemma: who hatched first, the chicken or the egg? When all is said and done, is it quiet quitting that leads to low employee engagement, or is it "human resources" management that leads to quiet quitting, which in turn leads to low employee engagement? According to human resources experts, this is not a people problem, but a management failure. Passive quitting can be a perfect reflection of dubious leadership: a lack of communication; a lack of appreciation; a lack of trust; a lack of a sense of belonging; a lack of consistency. Quiet quitters are not (only) those who want to avoid burnout, but above all those who refuse to do the job without due and deserved compensation. The idea isn't even to get fired - or not in the first place - but rather to set limits. To show that being available is not to be available at all times. The bosses' response was long in coming, with the term quiet firing. The term "quiet firing" consists of creating working conditions that are not at all favorable for an employee, forcing them to resign. Instead of confronting or firing employees, company leaders are starting to make the work environment so unbearable that the employee has no choice but to leave the company. Experts explain to The Washington Post that there are several practices that can affect the employee, including cuts in promotions, cuts in feedback, reducing the number of tasks or the working day itself. Supervisors don't necessarily create a hostile work environment, but they do make it unsatisfactory, isolated and without room for professional growth. The American newspaper writes that the concept "of convincing employees to leave a company is not an advisable approach." As with quiet quitting, which sparked intense discussions about whether the practice was right or wrong, quiet firing has also generated debate. On the one hand, it was seen as an effective measure for companies planning layoffs or for dealing with specific cases of underperforming employees. On the other hand, many human resources experts were against this trend. The best way to counteract it, according to the experts, would be for companies to look at their management practices and identify why employees are adopting this behavior. Employers concerned about quiet quitting should question the performance of their employees and the conditions they are being offered.

The reality is that both trends have been around for decades, in different guises - and without the Internet, so with less chance of going viral. In any case, it's not because it's a trend that it should be normalized. I read somewhere: "I started my 'passive resignation' six months ago and guess what: same salary, same recognition, same everything. Everything but the stress". Less stress, more time, a better life.

Translated from the original on Coming Back Issue, published September 2023. Full stories and credits on the print issue.