Quiet Quitting or Healthy Boundaries?

If you’re a proponent of Theory X, then you feel compelled to push people, because you’re afraid that they will stop if you don’t. Pre-Covid, this was a big fear with employers. They were concerned that, if they allowed employees to work from home, they wouldn’t do anything. They thought, “How can we control them, if we can’t see them?” Well, Covid disabused us of the notion that employees would stop working. To the contrary, employees don’t know when to stop, because there’s no quitting whistle or commute home to mark the end of the day. Instead, they are connected 24/7 by technology. They are always on. And, it’s exhausting.

Virtually all of my clients are wrestling with how to manage a remote workforce. It’s difficult, for sure. We are all trying to understand how to work in a remote world, where we have lost touch with our colleagues, clients, and customers. We’re high-touch people in a high-tech world. We are falling behind technology, and it’s driving us, rather than us driving it. The consequence of this sustained disconnect along with the Great Resignation, a Kinda Recession, and Another Reorganization is leading to massive overwhelm and burnout.

Who’s to blame? I don’t know that I would be quick to point the finger. From my vantage point, everyone is trying to do the best they can in a swirl of constant change and uncertainty.  I don’t see “quiet quitting,” for example, rather, I see employers who don’t know how to manage a remote and shifting workforce, and I see employees who are constantly over-worked amidst constantly shifting priorities thrown at under-staffed teams with unrealistic deadlines. What used to be an occasional team sprint has now become a survivor’s marathon. The pace is not sustainable, and employees – who have had the opportunity to ponder life during Covid’s “Great Reflection” – are not willing to sacrifice themselves without a clear cause and fair compensation.

Beatings will continue until morale improves

So, what’s the solution to “Quiet Quitting”? It’s complicated, so I don’t pretend to have an answer, but I have some ideas about how employers might approach it, starting with the thought that “Quiet Quitting”” is not a new idea. It’s a nifty, new title for “employee engagement,” which has been a hot topic for years. And, the “bones” of employee engagement are well-documented: Solid leadership and growth opportunities. Throw in a little fun and a cool factor, and Quiet Quitting turns into Energized Employees.

To find a solution to Quiet Quitting, employers might benefit from viewing it as an employer problem, rather than an employee problem (e.g., what’s wrong with them?). Here are three suggestions for employers to consider:

1. Set Goldilocks goals. Too many organizations embrace the “shoot for the stars and you’ll land on the moon” approach to goal setting. Impossible goals are demotivating. The BHAG is dead. What inspires people and engages them are Goldilocks Goals – goals that are in the sweet spot between so easy that we can do them today and so hard that they are impossible. If goals are too easy, then there’s no energy to them; no juice; no excitement. If goals are too hard, then they cause a “Why bother?” response. Goals should stir the soul a bit, but not flood the senses. They should cause us to stretch, but not break.
2. Manage to Capacity. “Figure it out!” does little to inspire, yet some leaders send that message to their employees who feel a lack of direction, under-resourced, and over-worked. Understanding individual capacity or bandwidth goes a long way toward setting realistic goals for employee and clients alike. Using a tool, such as the “Triangle of Truth” from the Project Management field can also help identify how to manage capacity better. Finally, a simple process for re-establishing priorities is super-helpful. Too often, I see leaders add to priorities without resetting expectations, and employees feel defeated. “Why should I work any harder if I’m going to face another mountain tomorrow?”
3. Healthy Boundaries.

Granted, it’s hard to say “no” or set a boundary when you feel like you’re going to lose your job. In my experience, the culture determines acceptable boundaries, so employers can help employees learn how to set “healthy” boundaries. Typically, this is a give-and-take, and where it ends depends on the market. When there is a labor shortage or a “war for talent” then employees have more leverage. When unemployment is high, then employers have more leverage.

Rather than view this as a negotiation, however, it’s possible for employers and employees to find common ground. What my clients say works best is what I characterize as “freedom in a framework”, where employers allow employees enough flexibility to shape a role to their liking while meeting the employer’s needs. In today’s work environment, it’s almost expected that this will look a little different for each employee, depending on factors such as family status, health, location, etc. And, like any good relationship, it’s somewhat dynamic. As circumstances rise, employers can flex with their employees, and vice versa. Fortunately, remote working lends itself to this type of flexibility.

The goal of freedom in a framework is sustainability – to enable and empower employees to bring their best indefinitely, not just for a month, a year, or until they burnout and leave.

Conclusion

Quiet Quitting or Healthy Boundaries? Employers might find an answer to this question by setting Goldilocks Goals, managing to capacity, and helping employees set healthy boundaries. If these three approaches don’t engage your employees, then they might be good people but not a good fit for your organization.