“Quiet quitting”, if nothing else, has started a lot of conversations. Many conversations. Perhaps too many conversations.
And therein, from this observer’s point of view, underscores a major problem. In the past few weeks, I’ve seen “quiet quitting” described as one of the following:
Taking over the workforce, threatening to breakdown communication
Nothing new: half of U.S. workers have done it in the last ten years
To be fair, I’m all for finding new ways to expand and refine ideas. I recently wrote a LinkedIn post discussing this very notion. Offering or receiving a different perspective on an idea is often how the best content is developed. Michelle Mellon of SalientMG recently made a strong case for road testing ideas to find the “cracks” and “breaks” - these are great opportunities to strengthen your thought leadership.
That being said, “quiet quitting” as an idea (if that is in fact its real name) is too ambiguous. There’s ample benefit and opportunity to examining ideas from multiple angles, but only if everyone agrees on the idea. By contrast, “quiet quitting” doesn’t have a precise definition, and no one seems to know where it originates or even its real impact.
This brings to mind that one of the most important questions you’ll ever ask yourself as a speaker, author, thought leader - truthfully anyone who creates content for public consumption:
“Who is this for?”
I ask variations on this question when thinking about “quiet quitting”:
Is this trend a cautionary tale for employers or employees?
Why do some believe that this is a new phenomenon and others say it’s been happening for years?
What is the clearest call to action now that we’re all discussing it?
The conversation about “quiet quitting” will surely continue, but not all topics are as fortunate. Keep working, keep testing and remember that your audience is your guide.