"Quiet Quitting" and "Quiet Firing". Apparently new business buzzwords.

[wtburnette]

I've heard the terms recently as well and they were explained slightly differently: Quiet quitters are those that do the job to the written expectation IE get the job done and work 40 hours when contracted to work a 40hr/wk job. The connotation is by not working 50, 60+ hours on a 40hr salary job and going out of their way to work themselves to exhaustion for the company, they're bad people. IMO it's a corporate term to degrade folks that only work to the job descriptions. I've no problem with doing 40hrs work for 40hrs pay but if someone does more than that, they ought to be compensated accordingly. I've seen how salaried folk age where I work, I'll stay hourly there.

Quiet firing I think is the same as your explanation: company basically doing everything they can to induce the person to quit; cutting pay and increasing workload in worsening conditions.

IMO, the switch of so many positions to salaried has caused a lot of this. Employers feel salaried means you're a wage slave that they can demand whatever hours they want out of you. In a normal organization like that, I'd rather be hourly so I can work my 40 and be done, or be paid extra to work extra. That's the way it should be. Thankfully my current position is salaried, but the boss is one of those rare managers that just wants the work done, not hours on a clock punched. As long as my work is completed, my manager doesn't care if I'm working 20 hours or 50. It tends towards 30 more often than not and we're both fine with that. I've had offers to go to positions making 20 - 25% more money, but 20 - 25% more time was demanded as well. I'm fine where I'm at thanks

 

[Destro]

These are the very same people who complain when they don't get promoted, or when their hours get cut.

Those can also be a cause

 

[WebSnyper]

For a good manager/organization, no. For a lot of managers and organizations, they would say yes.

Here's another question in a similar vein, if you do your current job to the best of your ability and do it well, always taking on new challenges when asked and doing very well, always getting the highest rating on your annual review, are you ripe for advancement? When I worked for Anthem, I was told you have to be doing the job of the position you are hoping to be promoted to, in order to be promoted to that position...

Seen similar. What happens most of the time is that those folks who get promoted are too busy trying to doing that job they want than to do the job they have and leave behind a mess for the person who comes in after them.

 

[WebSnyper]

Wow. Of course, the exacerbating factor you mention there is union.

There are also times when middle mgmt is the bureaucracy that causes this as well. Disconnect between all the garbage that middle mgmt thinks reflects good performance vs what is actually good performance. Creates employees that are good at the game, similar to union type environment from the ither direction. Causes people who are good at the job but not interested in playing the game to go elsewhere.

 

[wtburnette]

There are also times when middle mgmt is the bureaucracy that causes this as well. Disconnect between all the garbage that middle mgmt thinks reflects good performance vs what is actually good performance. Creates employees that are good at the game, similar to union type environment from the ither direction. Causes people who are good at the job but not interested in playing the game to go elsewhere.

Agreed. Productivity should be based on something that can be measured. If nothing else, experienced members of the team should be able to give the manager an idea of what is done on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. When my old boss left and a new manager was hired, I sat with her often and went through our workload extensively to explain what our SLA's should be and how many assessments should be completed every month on average. Gave her a good idea of what to look at in the beginning of her time with our team and from there she was able to tweak it and build it out for her personal goals for the team. Of course, the other part of that is the need to actually enforce those goals, once you know what those numbers should be. A good manager/supervisor/team lead should be able to do both.

 

[Shadow01]

We had a management structure that openly said that you didn’t need to know anything about the job your subordinates are doing to be able to manage them. It effectively turned into management by fear and intimidation. If I used the language here that we were subjected to by management, I would be perm banned . I’m talking about a fortune 500 nation wide company. I’ve been gone 7 years and I get calls from former co-workers today that tell me how much worse it is now.

 

[wtburnette]

We had a management structure that openly said that you didn’t need to know anything about the job your subordinates are doing to be able to manage them. It effectively turned into management by fear and intimidation. If I used the language here that we were subjected to by management, I would be perm banned . I’m talking about a fortune 500 nation wide company. I’ve been gone 7 years and I get calls from former co-workers today that tell me how much worse it is now.

It amazes me that companies get away with that garbage. I think companies should invest in training everyone in a management role how to actually be a good manager and things would drastically improve. Instead the above type of garbage is allowed to happen and the company is happy when good employees leave. Then they wonder why company culture is toxic.

 

[Shadow01]

It amazes me that companies get away with that garbage. I think companies should invest in training everyone in a management role how to actually be a good manager and things would drastically improve. Instead the above type of garbage is allowed to happen and the company is happy when good employees leave. Then they wonder why company culture is toxic.

CEO stated in 2005 that all training would be eliminated and it would be up to each employee to keep themselves relevant to the company by maintaining their own training on their own time. Tasks were assigned and if you in any way gave management the idea that you didn’t have the training for that specific job, you were accused of falsely claiming your job knowledge when you were interviewed by HR for the job position. I can’t count how many times I overheard “are you saying you lied on your job application “ when my manager was dressing down a new hire. Sad place for new hires to be in. We didn’t train them either. Our performance requirements didn’t allow us the flexible time needed to help them out. Sadly the wages, bennies, and good pension makes it a hard job to walk away from. Those guys are making $48.40 an hour today with double time after the first 9 hours of time and a half each week. Lump sum pensions around 300k at 25 years and just shy of 500k at 30 years plus what ever you decide to put in a 401k. Many have a 401k that is equal to the lump pension when they leave. But it’s selling your soul for a retirement.

 

[indyjs]

Sounds like the Telecom world

 

[OkieGirl]

We had a management structure that openly said that you didn’t need to know anything about the job your subordinates are doing to be able to manage them. It effectively turned into management by fear and intimidation...

I worked for a leader who drank that cool aid. It was a miserable existence and writing and re-writing my resignation became a hobby...they were 'early retired' and better leadership took that role. It's not great, but when you have knowledge in your particular niche and your boss doesn't have the need to prove their ego superior, you enjoy peaceful waters. My job is to make my boss look good and ensure everything within my area of responsibility is running well. I will say we have plenty of room for growth and I'm working on developing areas I'm not happy with, I also take a huge amount of time teaching/explaining where we are in the whole scheme of things and how our work affects teams downstream from us. I think leaders do need to be able to do 100% of the jobs your subordinates are doing. You also need to take the time to help them understand how everything links together. Its much easier to find value when you understand the whole process and how everyone fits into it (you also break less stuff and frustrate your team less).

Quiet Quitting -vs- Work Life Balance: I was in a management/leadership training session recently and the discussion of 'quiet quitting' came up. The speaker was following someone who had just given us a training module on work life balance because our industry seems to be the fastest path to burnout and career changes since Covid hit.
Speaker #1 = take time for yourself, set healthy boundaries and hold fast to them.
Speaker #2 = quiet quitters are not working beyond their mandatory time, and are not flexible in coming back to campus when requested.
Pretty much what we expected, do as we say but do NOT do as we do. Make everyone feel good, punish them if they want their time/space/freedom.

 

[wtburnette]

Quiet Quitting -vs- Work Life Balance: I was in a management/leadership training session recently and the discussion of 'quiet quitting' came up. The speaker was following someone who had just given us a training module on work life balance because our industry seems to be the fastest path to burnout and career changes since Covid hit.
Speaker #1 = take time for yourself, set healthy boundaries and hold fast to them.
Speaker #2 = quiet quitters are not working beyond their mandatory time, and are not flexible in coming back to campus when requested.
Pretty much what we expected, do as we say but do NOT do as we do. Make everyone feel good, punish them if they want their time/space/freedom.

Yep, that sounds like corporate America. When I worked at Anthem, they kept posting things about work/life balance on our intranet and in the company newsletters and talking about it during meetings, but they also expected you to absolutely kill yourself putting in major hours or not be even considered for a promotion...

 

[KLB]

I think leaders do need to be able to do 100% of the jobs your subordinates are doing

Where does that end? According to this logic, a CEO should be able to do every job in the company.

The only position I agree with this for might be a lead. A manager doesn't need to know how to do the jobs of their employees, but they do need a basic understanding of those jobs and the duties they perform. A manager is there to help them do their jobs effectively, remove roadblocks, and keep tasks on track.

In 30 years, I've never had a manager that could do my job.

 

[wtburnette]

Where does that end? According to this logic, a CEO should be able to do every job in the company.

The only position I agree with this for might be a lead. A manager doesn't need to know how to do the jobs of their employees, but they do need a basic understanding of those jobs and the duties they perform. A manager is there to help them do their jobs effectively, remove roadblocks, and keep tasks on track.

In 30 years, I've never had a manager that could do my job.

I've had a mix, managers who could do my job and those who couldn't. Guess which were the better managers? I've said before, probably in this thread that the problem with the saying "A good manager can manage anyone" is that there is a dearth of good managers. It's to the point where most of the managers I have worked with in the last 10+ years don't even have basic management skills. It may not be 100% necessary for a manager to be able to do everything their team does, but as much as possible certainly helps. I will say that my current manager couldn't do what we do, but she knows enough to rely on info from the seniors in the group and she gives us basic direction and stays out of our way. She knows that she's not good at the day to day, so she's promoting a team lead to help direct the day to day work. Sometimes you hit the jackpot, but often you don't.

 

[KLB]

I will say that my current manager couldn't do what we do, but she knows enough to rely on info from the seniors in the group and she gives us basic direction and stays out of our way.

That is what a manager should do. Help the team succeed. Any good manager is going to listen to their employees when it comes to details about the work they do.

Again, if you expect a manager to be able to perform every job under them, then a director should be able to do every job in a department. a VP every job in an organization, and a CEO every job in the country.

 

[wtburnette]

That is what a manager should do. Help the team succeed. Any good manager is going to listen to their employees when it comes to details about the work they do.

Yeah, key word again is good manager. I don't run across those as often as I should.

 

[KLB]

I guess my company does a decent job of cultivating good managers.

They did miss on a guy they were grooming on my team a couple of years ago. Management thought he was awesome, the poor guys that reported to him hated him. He was a horrible manager, and they were blind to their mistake.

 

[Daburkster]

Of course not. I would say that you are perfectly suited for the job you are performing and the wages you are receiving...for the foreseeable future.

Just don’t expect a raise anytime soon. Or a promotion with that attitude

 

[KLB]

Just don’t expect a raise anytime soon. Or a promotion with that attitude

You're showing you are new around here. He's a self-employed lawyer, so those don't really apply for him.

 

[OkieGirl]

Just don’t expect a raise anytime soon. Or a promotion with that attitude

YES! LOL, I had a team member 10+ years ago that set the bar at the lowest minimum standard. I actually had a closed door meeting w/ them about it b/c we could all see the writing on the wall and the company had contracted with their own set of "Bob's" and had started reviewing their corporate structure. I tried to explain that the lowest hanging apple tends to get picked first. I was starting to see the signs of layoffs/RIF's coming and I wanted folks to be ready; tight performance and cross trained into similar roles so that the companies perception was that we were valuable and diverse in our skillset. I was determined to do everything I could to position my entire team to have internal and external options if the 'powers that be' had decided we had too many team members and someone had to go.

A few years later I left for a similar opportunity closer to home and better pay. The RIF did eventually happen at the old employer and I had that staff member's resume land on my desk from a recruiter. I took a pass b/c I didn't want my team to carry someone else' weight if we could avoid it. In my world we have a bucket of work that needs done, everyone gets a portion of that work. The company makes a determination of how many bodies it takes to do that work and we are allocated that many FTE's. You will naturally have over performers and under performers but ultimately you have that bucket of work and the number of bodies to do it. If someone intentionally drags a$$ I don't have a tolerance for that. They will suck the life out of a solid team and your good people will leave (and should leave) if that is tolerated.

Geez, all these years later I am still shaking my head at that one. I've never had anyone look me in the eye and tell me that they aren't worried b/c they are meeting the minimum and they weren't going to do any more than that b/c it was where the bar was set....and then the bar got moved...

 

[WebSnyper]

You're showing you are new around here. He's a self-employed lawyer, so those don't really apply for him.

And he included "for the foreseeable future" about the wages being received. They both said the same thing, not sure that @Daburkster realized that.