I'm sorry, I've not read the full report, but did the study on quiet quitting consider that hybrid workers may become disengaged not because they're not in the office full time, but because they are made to go to the office against their will and denied the competence to know how best to do their job or perform at their best (i.e. micromanagement)?
I've read the very long abstract now. I will say it almost feels like the research was paid for by corporate bosses! For instance, they talk about quiet quitting happening more when there is a lack of immediate supervision of employees - i.e. micromanagement - but don't seem to consider that the lack of trust implicit in micromanagement could itself cause quiet quitting.
I think what they also miss is that employment is also a social contract. During the hiring process, the recruiter will set out the company policies (e.g. 30 days holiday, 3 days in the office), the candidate will ask about what's important to them, and whether or not there is a negotiation, ultimately the candidate accepts the agreed terms when they accept the job and that is a social contract between the two parties. If the company then negatively changes its policies and/or moves the goalposts, then that is a breach of the promises (social contract) agreed at the time of hiring. And frankly, I don't know anyone who reacts well to breach of promise. Add in a negative employment environment outside the company (e.g. explicit or implicit age discrimination, highly specialist fields with very rare job openings), then a consequence of quiet quitting as per the authors' definition (doing just enough with no intention of actually leaving) should hardly be a surprise.
Super interesting. The bit about connection turning the volume up on job cuts is the part leaders tend to skip. I reckon you can't take the loyalty and effort that come with close teams and then be surprised when a restructure hurts more.
Interesting that people with close work friends were also more likely to use AI tools. Makes sense if most people pick up new tools from whoever sits next to them.
I'm sorry, I've not read the full report, but did the study on quiet quitting consider that hybrid workers may become disengaged not because they're not in the office full time, but because they are made to go to the office against their will and denied the competence to know how best to do their job or perform at their best (i.e. micromanagement)?
I've read the very long abstract now. I will say it almost feels like the research was paid for by corporate bosses! For instance, they talk about quiet quitting happening more when there is a lack of immediate supervision of employees - i.e. micromanagement - but don't seem to consider that the lack of trust implicit in micromanagement could itself cause quiet quitting.
I think what they also miss is that employment is also a social contract. During the hiring process, the recruiter will set out the company policies (e.g. 30 days holiday, 3 days in the office), the candidate will ask about what's important to them, and whether or not there is a negotiation, ultimately the candidate accepts the agreed terms when they accept the job and that is a social contract between the two parties. If the company then negatively changes its policies and/or moves the goalposts, then that is a breach of the promises (social contract) agreed at the time of hiring. And frankly, I don't know anyone who reacts well to breach of promise. Add in a negative employment environment outside the company (e.g. explicit or implicit age discrimination, highly specialist fields with very rare job openings), then a consequence of quiet quitting as per the authors' definition (doing just enough with no intention of actually leaving) should hardly be a surprise.
Super interesting. The bit about connection turning the volume up on job cuts is the part leaders tend to skip. I reckon you can't take the loyalty and effort that come with close teams and then be surprised when a restructure hurts more.
Experienced personally six months ago. I can attest to the resulting trauma.
Interesting that people with close work friends were also more likely to use AI tools. Makes sense if most people pick up new tools from whoever sits next to them.