What's wrong with quiet quitting?
A look at whether you should join the jobless employed
Quiet quitting is all the rage.
For those unfamiliar with the term, quiet quitting refers to the practice of doing the bare minimum at work. It involves consciously disengaging and putting in no more time or effort than is necessary to collect your salary. The term was popularised on TikTok in 2022. By its proponents, it is viewed as an overdue opt-out from “hustle culture” – the “rise and grind” gospel preached by the likes of Elon Musk and Gary Vee which romanticizes intense work and long hours.
Advocates of quiet quitting argue it's time people push back on this notion and re-prioritise life outside of work.
Just an age-old phenomenon?
Some say quiet quitting is nothing new. As Derek Thompson wrote in the Atlantic:
“As a workplace phenomenon, workers’ mild disengagement is about as novel as cubicles, lunch breaks, and bleary-eyed colleagues stopping by your workstation to mutter, “Mondays, amirite?” What the kids are now calling “quiet quitting” was, in previous and simpler decades, simply known as “having a job.”
There’s clearly something to this. However, it fails to recognise that widespread remote work has changed the game. While some disengagement isn’t novel, acting on this – and taking it to an extreme – is now much easier. In a world of remote work, managers struggle to have visibility of workloads. People can get away with doing far less. Discontented workers can turn off their cameras and physically leave the room during meetings, rather than merely daydreaming.
This doesn’t mean returning to the office is a panacea. Findings are mixed on how more widespread remote working has impacted workforce productivity. But the shift has clearly led to a growing subset of people radically disengaging – what Vox calls the new “jobless employed”.
Quiet quitting has become a career ambition
The appeal of disengagement has recently given birth to a sister concept – the “lazy girl job”. The intentionally provocative term was coined by Gabrielle Judge on TikTok in March 2023, when she defined it as follows:
“A lazy girl job is something that you can basically quiet quit… There’s a lot of jobs out there where you could make like $60 to $80k, so like pretty comfortable salaries, and not do that much work and be remote. Most of them are non-technical... like Marketing Associate, Account Manager, Customer Success Manager”.
Since its introduction, the concept has gained significant traction. Judge’s #lazygirlsjob now has over 20 million views. There has also been more journalistic support for it than one might expect. Buzzfeed glowingly described lazy girl jobs as “roles with great work-life balance, chill bosses, and liveable salaries”. Even Forbes released an article entitled “How ‘Lazy Girl Jobs’ contribute to work-life balance and burnout prevention”.
This approval highlights an interesting shift: quiet quitting has evolved from something one does in response to an overly demanding or unrewarding work environment to become a career goal. One should seek out the opportunity to quiet quit. To support the implementation of this new philosophy, Judge has a Lazy Girl Job Program where she helps people find their own lazy girl jobs.
Is this just rational behaviour, or an over-reaction?
I have some sympathy for this. As I mentioned in a previous post, cultural expectations for work have inflated in a way that inevitably leaves many disappointed and neglecting other avenues for fulfilment. Given this backdrop, dialling down the emphasis we place on work appears to be the logical response.
However, quiet quitting and lazy girl jobs represent a move to the other extreme. Treating work in this way – as a purely economic exchange – involves setting our sights too low. That’s because work clearly can be an important vehicle for other things we care about. It’s an avenue for learning, feeling recognised and valued, and making some contribution to the world. Given the time we spend doing it – even if we’re quiet quitting – closing the door on these benefits doesn’t seem wise. Reducing work to a tedious chore is likely to just be demoralising. It also marks a failure to engage with the life you’re living - or, if you don’t like it, to pursue another. Although disengagement might be justifiable for many menial jobs, those earning $60 to $80k per year as a Customer Success Manager have other options.
What should we do about quiet quitting?
Plenty of responsibility for driving people to this mindset lies with employers. To be engaged and experience work as fulfilling, employees need opportunities to learn and grow. They need to feel personally connected with their colleagues and to be doing work that isn’t boring, repetitive and pointless. Surveys demonstrate that many workplaces are failing to meet these basic criteria. To tackle the rise in quiet quitting, employers need to address these shortfalls.
Yet the onus isn’t solely on employers. Ultimately, we all need to take ownership of our own working lives. If we’re not engaged, then we have to demand better. Initially from employers, by voicing concerns and pushing for change. Then, if the situation persists, from ourselves - either by changing our outlook, or changing jobs. Because the time we spend working is a significant portion of our life. Despite what the quiet quitting advocates say, psychologically disengage from that reality cannot be the answer.
Great piece, and this really hits the nail on the head: "Treating work in this way – as a purely economic exchange – involves setting our sights too low."