Quiet Quitting: A Global Phenomenon
“You can never pay me so little that I can’t work even less” — a line made famous by the Yugoslavian TV series Grlom u Jagode, depicting the mindset prevalent during the communist era in the former Yugoslavia.
You’ve probably heard this phrase countless times, sometimes as a joke, and sometimes with serious intent. But what if I told you that this very phrase somewhat describes a “phenomenon” that has become a global trend in the workplace?
In the West, it’s called “quiet quitting,” which, in essence, refers to doing just enough to meet your job’s basic requirements—no more, no less. You do your tasks for the day, week, month, or year, and that’s it. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable approach, as every role should be structured this way. But is this good for both the company and the employees? Here’s the short answer: it depends—on both the company and the individual.
The Individual/Employee – Effort as a Measure of Value
Research from trusted sources like Harvard Business Review and The New York Times suggests that this phenomenon stems from employees’ dissatisfaction within their organizations. It’s not just about being underpaid, but also about feeling undervalued by colleagues, superiors, and ultimately, the company itself.
Burnout is often cited as the main driver behind quiet quitting. And rightly so. Many of us have experienced those moments in our careers—working overtime, sacrificing weekends, giving it our all—only to be met with an indifferent management that views such effort as simply “the norm.” This leads to the inevitable question: “Why am I doing this?”
Beyond burnout, the disconnect among team members due to remote work also plays a significant role. The lack of in-person interaction makes it easier for team members to disengage emotionally. After all, building meaningful relationships over screens and platforms like Slack or Skype is difficult. Out of sight, out of mind.
So, what’s the solution? It’s not necessarily to quit, but to exact a kind of “revenge” by subtly sabotaging your own work. It’s a passive-aggressive response to poor management that aims to highlight a lack of recognition but results in employee disengagement.
From an analytical standpoint, quiet quitting is a calculated move for an individual. For employees with a few years under their belt and a permanent contract, this can be advantageous. Here’s why.
In reputable companies, there are various processes—dictated by rules and company culture—designed to ensure employee satisfaction before a termination is considered. HR departments are tasked with investigating productivity and finding ways to motivate the employee to improve. This might involve transfers, training, or even demotions. For an employee who knows how to play the game, this process can stretch over several months—allowing them to collect a paycheck with minimal effort before any termination decision is made. This strategy might buy them between six months and a year, during which time the organization suffers.
However, while this might seem like gaming the system, it can come at the cost of personal career growth.
The Company – Misuse of One’s Position within the Organization
From a company’s perspective, quiet quitting can be viewed as a kind of internal exploitation. Employees who feel entitled to take advantage of their positions, with little accountability, misuse the flexibility given to them. While “exploitation” is a harsh term, it effectively describes the avoidance of responsibilities. It’s often difficult to precisely define a role’s tasks, leading to a “gray area” that allows employees to skirt their duties.
It’s not uncommon to find employees in a company who seem to have very little work, simply waiting for someone to bring them a task. If this employee is making between €1,500 and €2,000 a month, it raises the question—why aren’t they taking more initiative? Why wait for tasks to be handed to them?
We’ve noticed, and personally experienced, that employees often enter an organization looking for good working conditions. Yet once they receive them, some fail to reciprocate with initiative and proactivity. The disruption caused by the migration of non-technical roles into the IT sector only exacerbates this issue.
The IT industry, particularly in our region, is sensitive to this trend due to the imbalance of supply and demand in the labor market. The demand for talent is so high that it’s often difficult to assess a candidate’s seniority. In many cases, we see mid-level developers selling themselves as seniors. If we add flawed HR assessment processes to the mix, it becomes clear that people can slip through the cracks—often staying long enough before their true abilities are revealed. Even then, they’ll manage to find another job quickly because of the sheer demand for IT professionals.
In short, quiet quitting is not a new phenomenon in our region; it’s just never had a proper name. But the core message of this story, for me, is transparency and clear communication. Nothing should be taken for granted!
Every role should be thoroughly defined in writing, so both employees and companies know what’s expected. The next step is transparent communication, both top-down and bottom-up.
At the end of the day, we are all part of a larger group working toward a shared goal. And on that journey, it’s essential that we feel good along the way. That’s why communication is such a powerful tool—because we are all human, first and foremost.
This article was originally published on www.hrlab.rs.
