Quiet Quitting

Abstract

Over the past few months, I have heard more and more in the media about quiet quitting. Headlines in the news include questions such as “What Is ‘Quiet Quitting’? and Why It’s Trending on Social Media” (Bretous, 2022), “Is Quiet Quitting Real?” (Harter, 2022), and “What Is ‘Quiet Quitting’ and How It May Be a Misnomer for Setting Boundaries at Work” (Kilpatrick, 2022). While definitions vary, they all agree that in quiet quitting, one does not literally quit one’s job, but rather simply does the work that is expected of the position, without going above and beyond what is expected (Pearce, 2022). This phenomenon, first noted on TikTok, has become widespread. A recent Gallup poll found that quiet quitters made up over one half of U.S. employees in the second quarter of 2022 (Harter, 2022). During the pandemic, some employees saw how their work might be reimagined remotely or flexibly, while at the same time experiencing virtual burnout and blurring of work–home boundaries. Other employees, including many social workers, were labeled “essential workers,” and had huge and often dangerous in-person work demands placed on them. Postpandemic demands to return to work, coupled with work culture that provided little reward or opportunity for growth, resulted in disillusionment and disengagement for many workers. This led to the Great Resignation, where many who could afford to leave their jobs did so. For those who could not, or chose not to leave their jobs, quiet quitting was an alternative (Espada, 2022). There seem to be two streams in the debate about quiet quitting. In one, this phenomenon is framed as simply setting good work–life boundaries and not getting caught up in the hustle culture; doing one’s job well but not taking on additional uncompensated work or service to get ahead (Kilpatrick, 2022). Quiet quitting is seen as a healthy response to a culture of overwork that valorizes always doing more (see Bunting, 2005). In another view, it means being disengaged from one’s work, doing the minimum to get by, and having a safer way to express dissatisfaction or exact some small revenge against employers who seem not to care or provide opportunities for worker reward or development. Quiet quitting precludes caring, passion, or energy at work, and workers who quiet quit are not true contributors to the workplace (Klotz & Bolino, 2022). While I have anecdotally heard of social workers who have self-identified as quiet quitters, I could not find anything on the internet or in the literature specific to quiet quitting in our discipline. There are studies suggesting that social workers left their positions in high numbers during the pandemic, as part of the Great Resignation. For example, the statewide social worker vacancy in Idaho increased from 19 percent in 2020 to 36 percent in 2021, and about 600 social workers in Kentucky quit their jobs during the same time period. Many of these social workers are finding new work within the field at other agencies or in private practice or telehealth, but the churn in social work positions has been high (Laurio, 2022). One could imagine quiet quitting occurring as well. Considering the ethical implications of quiet quitting in social work is important for our discipline, given that this national trend seems to have no end in sight. Although I do not have any answers, it is still worthwhile to share my thoughts here as a way to begin the conversation, and I hope you will join in it as well. One of the ethical principles of our profession is service, and our Code of Ethics states, “Social workers elevate service to others above self-interest” (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2021, Ethical Principles section, para. 4). Quiet quitting seems in conflict with this principle. Finding work–life balance requires balancing self-interest and service rather than elevating service above self-interest. Another social work principle is competence, and our code states, “Social workers continually strive to increase their professional knowledge and skills and to apply them in practice” (NASW, 2021, Ethical Principles section, para. 16). Doing one’s job and no more precludes continual striving for new skills and growing in competence. In addition, competent social workers are proactive critical thinkers and changemakers (Adams et al., 2002), something unlikely if one is simply doing the minimum expected of the job. Finally, the principle of integrity may be challenged by quiet quitting. The Code of Ethics requires that we “act honestly and responsibly” and interact with our clients in a trustworthy manner (NASW, 2021). Might a social worker who is quiet quitting and not doing all they can for a client be violating an implicit pact with that client? The principle of integrity may also be upheld by quiet quitting. Our code states that “social workers should take measures to care for themselves professionally and personally” (NASW, 2021, Ethical Principles section, para. 16). Self-care and setting work–life boundaries are an ethical mandate, which may, for some people, look like a version of quiet quitting. Perhaps the most important ethical principle supported by quiet quitting may be social justice, which includes the following element: “Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources” (NASW, 2021, Ethical Principles section, para. 7). We know that most social work services are built into systems that are understaffed and underresourced. Social workers are often expected to work longer and harder to make up for these deficits for the good of the client, thus putting the onus on themselves to solve a problem that is actually systemic. As noted by Astvik et al. (2014), “When resources do not match the organisational goals or quality standards, the social workers are forced into strategies that either endanger their own health or threaten the quality of service” (p. 52). This workload intensification and overwork both take a huge toll on the social worker and prop up an underresourced and lean system—allowing the oppressive system to continue to function (O’Neill, 2015). Quiet quitting can lead to this exploitative overwork being revealed, and in turn, put to an end. Quiet quitting shines a light on the exploitation of social workers’ labor by systems that manipulate and count on their caring and dedication. Quiet quitting can be protest, rejecting the neoliberal assumption of responsibility at the individual level of the social worker and instead demanding change at a systemic level (Hendrix et al., 2021). Balancing these principles and making decisions about quiet quitting, self-care, burnout, and professional commitment is truly challenging—a conflict between subordination of self for service to others and self-care (Weinberg, 2014). What are you seeing and what do you think about quiet quitting?

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 178 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.