Observing from the perspective of social science, we will find that all phenomena in society can be explained by social conditions. For example, the "Great Resignation" that appeared after the epidemic is the society's reflection on the previous work during the epidemic. However, we rarely hear about this term anymore ad society returns to normal.

“Quiet Quitting” becomes a buzzword following the wave of resignations. It doesn’t really mean resigning. Colleagues with quiet quitting go to work as usual, but they will not regard work as the main of his life. Instead, they will focus more on taking care of themselves and their life outside of work. After hearing this explanation, it’s not difficult to find this is not a new concept. This kind of reflection on work has actually appeared a long time ago, and now it is just come with a new name. 

After the Second World War, many countries have the conditions to focus on economic development, and making money has become a common vision of the world as the number of global wars has decreased. However, the value of living will no longer work when the space for upper-class in society narrows and the gap between the rich and the poor increases. When people hit a wall in the real society, their reflection will be naturally triggered, and quiet quitting is the answer for some people. The emergence of new trends of thought in society shows that society has the ability to correct. But if this trend of thought does not match the reality of the society, it will disappear soon, just like the hippies are no longer found nowadays. 

The rise of quiet quitting is related to the epidemic. After experiencing some life and death, people naturally have some new understanding of life. The epidemic is only an accelerant, not the main cause. The real main reason is that the previous concept of "more work, more pay" in the past is more and more different from the reality. "More work may not necessarily pay more", enhancing the growth of new trends of thought. As long as social conditions persist, similar trends in thought will continue. 

After reading many related articles, I think people who choose quiet quitting can be roughly divided into two types. The first category is those who advocate a balance between work and rest. This type of people will still work hard. The other category is those who have lost their enthusiasm for work. They are waiting for new job opportunities to restart their enthusiasm for work. These two types of people can actually be dealt with through management. Quiet quitting is a matter of values, it does not mean not working hard. I don't think it is difficult to deal with. What we really need to be aware about is actually "bad performance". 

Kakonomics was proposed by Gloria Origgi, the philosopher of the French National Center for Scientific Research. An economic theory derived from Greece, which means that both parties to a transaction tend to agree to exchange low-quality payments for low-quality returns. In job hunting forums, it is often seen that some people choose jobs with lower income but easier work. If companies also have the same idea, a contract can be formed. 

It is not difficult to find examples of bad performance around you, and sometimes you can find examples of bad performance but consciously not. Poor performance has nothing to do with laziness, but it is different from quiet quitting. People who perform poorly will actively pursue second-class results, rather than the former advocated "work while working, and play while playing". The reasons for choosing to be bad vary from person to person, but if you want to reduce the "risk", it doesn't really work. When both sides of the transaction compromise on second class goals, it will only be a partial balance. As the external environment is always changing, the balance will finally be broken. 

In general enterprises, the rewards of each person are not publicly circulated. It is difficult for people other than the two parties to understand the tacit agreement, and it is easy to regard it as unfair. Poor employees can easily become defensive because of self-protection, which will slowly reduce the enthusiasm of the team. Under the law that bad money drives out good money, the team even regards first-class goals as unreasonable existence, and then enters a vicious circle of pursuing second-class goals.

Simon So

Head of Digital Marketing