The term “quiet quitting” has suddenly become a hot headline as organizations and media seek explanations for our ongoing tight labor market. While the clever term “quiet quitting” may be new, the concept of employees being dissatisfied with their workplaces and thus not being willing to contribute more to their employers is not new; for years, the HR lingo was “employee engagement.”
Recently, an internal (i.e. not available to the general public) communication was shared with me. In that communication, an executive was trying to put a “positive spin” on the “quiet quitting” issue while encouraging managers to be “more appreciative” of their employee’s efforts. In another forum, a leader posted a poll about factors that positively impact employee engagement and morale. None of the prepopulated choices included the leadership skills of the supervisor. Instead, ideas like a better orientation or more employee events were included in the prepopulated choices. Unfortunately, the “other” option did not provide enough characters to suggest developing the skill of the leaders.
What the communication missed is that employee satisfaction (and turnover) is not merely impacted by a more frequent “thank you” from a manager/leader. What the poll missed is that you can have a great orientation and great employee events, but if the leaders are ineffective or do not treat employees properly, EVERYTHING else is meaningless.
To truly impact “quiet quitting” we have to make significant inroads in leadership development and training. At the end of the day, the leader/direct manager contributes to the top 5 reasons for employee dissatisfaction and turnover. Additional “token” thank you messages, better orientations and attractive employee events are insufficient to overcome the numerous other faults in leadership.
Employees quit (or “quiet quit”) their jobs because:
- They have not received the training needed to do the job or they do not have the resources to properly do the job. Who is responsible for ensuring that adequate training is delivered and the proper resources are in place for all employees? If you answered THE LEADER, you would be correct. A nurse once recounted how she was asked to complete a task by her supervisor. This nurse had 20+ years of nursing experience but had not been trained on the task that was being asked of her. Despite her tenure at the hospital and being in the top 10% of wage earners for her job title, this nurse refused the directive and told her manager that she would quit if she was forced to do the task before any training was provided. Imagine that level of disengagement…being willing to leave a job of 10 years and forgo a 6-figure income simply because of the dissatisfaction that came from a single leader’s job assignment.
- They have been placed in a job that is mismatched with their skills. Poor job fit plays out in many ways, but who is responsible for placing or hiring someone into a position that does not align with their capabilities? Again, if you answered THE LEADER, you are correct for a second time. Have you ever seen an employee who was promoted beyond their skill set, simply because it was the “easiest” decision to make? Have you seen a friend, relative, or other “known entity” hired into a position that (s)he was not qualified to hold? Have you seen interview processes that are so weak or incomplete that they result in poor hires? All of these are examples of how leaders are responsible for poor job fit.
- Coworkers are not committed to the work or the organizational goals. Who is responsible for holding employees accountable for the deliverables of their position? Who is responsible for embedding the goals of the organization into the work activities of the team? If you answered THE LEADER, you would 3 for 3 on this quiz. Especially in our current labor market, more leaders have been tempted to ignore or minimize poor performance, policy violations, and employees who are acting in opposition to the organization’s goals. The folly of this approach is that good employees will grow dissatisfied and quit while those who love an environment with no accountability will stick around.
- They perceive that their pay is inaqequate or too low. Imagine 2 people hired to pick apples both earning $100 per day (a hypothetical). If apple picker #1 picks 1,000 apples in the day and apple picked #2 picks just 100 apples, what is apple picker #1 thinking. Initially, (s)he be okay with the performance discrepancy, optimistically thinking it was just a “bad day.” But what happens if the performance discrepancy continues for weeks, months, or even years. It is highly probable that, in the absence of any action of the manager/supervior to address the other apple picker’s performance, that apple picker #1 feels significantly underpaid. When people perceive they are underpaid, they seek to remedy that perception by exploring other job opportunities. Again, if you recognize the manager’s role in propogating the feeling of being underpaid, you have again recognized how managers and supervisors drive employee satisfaction and turnover.
- They are not connected to the vission/mission or purpose of the organization. Every organization has a mission or purpose. In some cases, that mission is altruistic, focused on helping other people, while other organizations have a mission to help achieve a specific task or goal. The Home Depot prides itself on being the one-stop destination for do-it-yourself home improvement; their commercials remind us that Home Depot is “how doers get more done.” Imagine working for The Home Depot and having no interest in home improvement, customer service, or helping people achieve home improvement goals. An employee who has none of these is disconnected from the mission and purpose of the organzation. When this occurs, the job is is just that…a job. It is easy to grow dissatisfied with a job. You already know the answer to this, but who is reponsible for hiring, training, and connecting each job to the mission of the organization? Indeed, the manager/supervisor is the answer for the fifth time.
When we understand what drives employee dissatisfaction and turnover, we see that “quiet quitting” is not all the quiet. A more accuracte term would have been “screaming quitting, but no one is listening.” The factors behind the “quiet quitting” movement are not hard to identify, but someone has to be listening and observing. If we do not improve the skills of those in leadership roles, hiring and retaining top talent will continue to be a challenge and the “quiet quitting” movement will continue.
For over 20 years, we have worked with various levels of leadership in a number of industries. That experience was the driving force behind our leadership development program. If you are ready to invest in your current leaders and/or your potential leaders, we would love to help.