Quiet Quitting, A Signal of Strain, Trust, and Fairness at Work

Quiet quitting is often described as an employee attitude problem. Many employees who appear to have withdrawn still attend to the responsibilities they were hired to perform. What changes is their willingness to contribute the unpaid extras, stay late, solve problems outside their role, mentor colleagues, or bring enthusiasm to work that no longer feels sustainable or fair.

Research describes quiet quitting through detachment, reduced initiative, and reduced motivation (Galanis et al., 2023). It is an emerging work behaviour, not a diagnosis, and it should not be confused with poor performance or with a healthy decision to maintain reasonable boundaries. The more useful leadership question is, what has changed in the employee’s experience of work?

Employees invest energy where the work feels manageable and where the relationship feels reciprocal. Heavy workloads, impossible deadlines, emotional labour, unclear priorities, and constant urgent requests all consume energy. Support, autonomy, meaningful feedback, adequate capacity, recognition, and a reliable manager help people recover that energy and remain engaged (Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001).

What an employee may experience	What may happen next
“There is always more work than time, and no one helps me prioritise.”	Core work is completed, but improvement work and voluntary contribution begin to disappear.
“I carry responsibility, but I cannot make routine decisions.”	Initiative falls, the employee waits for direction, and ownership diminishes.
“Difficult clients are my problem, mistakes are noticed, effort is invisible.”	The employee remains professional, but becomes emotionally distant.

Consider a payroll administrator during month end. She has always stayed late to resolve system errors, answer queries, and help new team members. Over time, vacancies remain open, problems recur, and the requests for extra effort become normal rather than exceptional. She continues to process salaries accurately, yet stops refining templates, coaching colleagues, and responding after hours. This may not be a loss of capability or care. It may be a sensible effort to protect limited energy.

There is another part of the story, trust. Employment is more than a written job description. People form expectations about the exchange. They may believe that carrying a team through a difficult period will be met with support, flexibility, fair recognition, growth, or a genuine opportunity when one becomes available. Such expectations may be openly stated, implied by repeated practice, or created through managers’ promises.

When people believe that these expectations have not been honoured, they may perceive a shortfall in the employment relationship. If the shortfall feels significant, repeated, or unfairly explained, it can become more personal, producing anger, distress, and a sense of betrayal (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Topa et al., 2022). It is important not to assume that every disappointment will have this effect. Employees interpret events differently, and a clear explanation, a fair process, and a credible attempt to repair the situation can make a material difference.

A demanding season can feel challenging, even meaningful, when leaders explain the pressure, provide practical support, and honour commitments such as recovery time, recognition, or development. The same season can feel exploitative when support is absent and assurance after assurance is deferred.

Quiet quitting may be less a refusal to work than a signal that energy, trust, or a sense of fair exchange has been depleted.

The leadership response should be curiosity, not accusation. Begin with a specific and respectful conversation. Ask where workload is becoming unmanageable, which obstacles consume unnecessary time, what support is missing, and whether earlier commitments require attention. Then act visibly. Remove avoidable work, clarify competing priorities, share the load, allow appropriate discretion, and make support consistent rather than occasional.

Where expectations cannot be met, leaders should say so early and explain why. A promise that must change is less damaging when it is acknowledged, discussed fairly, and replaced with a credible alternative. Silence, vague assurances, and repeated postponement are more likely to weaken trust.

Quiet quitting should not be romanticised, and formal responsibilities still matter. Yet treating it only as a problem of motivation overlooks what the work and the relationship may be communicating. The most useful question is not, “Why have they stopped going above and beyond?” It is, “What would make contribution feel sustainable, respected, and worthwhile again?”

About the Author:

Thomas Tsikai is a distinguished Industrial Psychologist with expertise across the medico-legal, banking, and mining sectors. An emerging scholar at the University of Pretoria, he brings a compelling blend of practitioner experience and growing academic curiosity to the study of human behaviour in the workplace.