stressed young man sitting at desk with computer

Bioethics Forum Essay

Quiet Quitting Undermines Human Flourishing

Quiet quitting, the trend in which people do only the minimum in their jobs, has captured attention in the news and on social media. More than half of U.S. workers are quiet quitting, according to a recent Gallup poll, and most of them are in their 20s and 30s. I was discussing this trend with my bioethics colleagues, and we considered the ethical implications for people’s well-being.

Examining the context for quiet quitting begins with American culture around work. Our society has always placed a high value on work and having a robust work ethic. “What do you do?” is one of the first and seemingly most important questions we ask people. Americans derive a significant part of their self-worth from their work in contrast to people in many other countries. But Americans’ view of work seems to be shifting for several reasons.

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a huge impact on work and on employees’ perceptions of it. On the positive side, work may no longer be the be all and end all. People may have adjusted the balance between work and other priorities and found that they gain equal or more meaning from life outside of work, i.e., family, friends, hobbies.  People under 40 report less engagement with their workplace and lower thriving and well-being than older people. Finding a better balance between work and life is not all bad, but quiet quitting isn’t the answer. The reason is that it is associated—as a cause, an effect, or perhaps both—with people finding a lack of meaning through their work, which could diminish human flourishing in the long term.

The shift to remote work during the pandemic may have contributed to lower fulfilment at work for many people.  The virtual world means less social contact and interaction with colleagues some of whom may be new. One example that kept coming up in my conversations with bioethics colleagues is that  a question or discussion needs to carry a certain weight to warrant scheduling a meeting online. So, the more casual human interactions are largely lost. Social interaction is a benefit of working together. A recent U.S. Surgeon General report identified five essential domains to support workplaces as engines of well-being: protection from harm, mattering at work, opportunity for growth, connection and community, and life-work harmony.  Specifying these domains acknowledges both the ideal relationship we should seek with work and its importance in fostering well-being and flourishing.

Detachment from work is not good for us as individuals or for society. We gain a deep sense of satisfaction from knowing we have done excellent work, not simply minimal or good enough work. This doesn’t mean we need to, or should, derive all our worth and value from what we produce, but we benefit from having some stake in our work and thinking that it matters.   

As a society, we need to address the impact of the pandemic on the nature and culture of work, and reckon with our history of tying individual worth so strongly to what we do compared with who we are and what gives our lives meaning. We must understand the sources of quiet quitting and take action against them. Organizations must change by creating environments that enhance the well-being of their employees. Employers can begin by reaffirming the value of each individual to the organization, fostering social connections, and listening to what workers need to find a work-life balance. Only then can our society move toward more widespread human flourishing.

Katherine Wasson, PhD, MPH, HEC-C, is a professor in the Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics at Loyola University Chicago. (@kwasson2)

Read More Like This
  1. Thank you for a fascinating piece. I went to the Surgeon General’s website on ‘Workplace Wellbeing’ as you indicated. It is a lovely Internet experience. Everyone should takes it journey. (but not, of course, as part of their unhealthy ‘quiet quitting’)

    I wonder however that the obvious is missing? Is it intentional? or does the website forget why most people work?

    The website announces that workplaces can be ‘engines of well being’. Ok, but are they not, also – if not primarily – to be ‘engines’ that produce products, services, and creations that are needed by society to survive and thrive? Food? Energy? Housing? Communications? Learning? Nursing? Transportation? Antibiotics? Sex toys? etc? I am certain that the Surgeon

    And are they not also – if not primarily – to be such ‘engines’ buy paying just compensation so that workers cay pay their bills when they need food, energy, housing, communications, learning, nursing, transportation, antibiotics, and sex toys? etc?

    In this light the statement by the SG’s website appears out of tune:
    “The ability to integrate work and non-work demands, for all workers, rests on the human needs of autonomy and flexibility.”
    Should it include that one of the integrating intentionalities of “work and non-work demands” is to earn an honest, legal living to support and care for self, household, and community?

    Yes, the SGs lovely Internet journey does eventually get to “collective sense of working toward a common goal” : “This assigns further meaning to work, generates pride, and fuels motivation all while reducing stress. Organizations can help workers see the connection between their day-to-day work and the organizational purpose and mission.” But even here there is not recognition that people work to produce income and benefits and other compensation to support self, household, and community. Millions of workers work primarily so that they, their household, and others in their community (extended family, neighbors in need, other dependents – including those ‘back home’ – even in other states or countries where send remittances) can have food, energy, housing, communications, learning, nursing, transportation, antibiotics, and sex toys? etc?

    Can you please discuss that essential ethical and moral aspect of work? That we owe ourselves and others to work to support self, household, and community(ies) that need us?

  2. Thank you for your thoughts on quiet quitting. I take exception with your comment about quiet quitting being “doing only the minimum”. I have been quietly quitting for years and actually find it improves my productivity, effectiveness, and enjoyment of work! I have excelled and been recognized for my leadership and contributions to my organization and profession. The often-cited work ethic and company loyalty associated with “boomers” applies to me, yet in the past I found myself mentally, emotionally, and physically exhausted trying to be a parent, partner, and employee because there was no time left for selfcare. I have been blessed to have supervisors who supported me working a flexible schedule with full-time compensation. This allows me time to use in ways that renews me–sometimes it is “work stuff,” sometimes it is personal care, sometimes it is nothing, and sometimes it is a combination. I am mid 60’s, actively pursuing a promotion rather than planning for retirement, and am regularly told by my peers that I continue to flourish. I find the generalization you make about quiet quitting as disturbing as any generalization made about a group of people.

  3. Intriguing piece.
    I would have also liked to see definitions for “flourishing” and “fulfillment”.

    There are several claims in here that are interesting but lack a citation (i.e. data to support the claim).
    1. “The reason is that it is associated—as a cause, an effect, or perhaps both—with people finding a lack of meaning through their work, which could diminish human flourishing in the long term.” What studies have found that “lack of meaning through their work” diminishes “human flourishing” given that there have been eras when the U.S. has faced massive layoffs and some workers never return to the workplace, this data should exist. 2. “The shift to remote work during the pandemic may have contributed to lower fulfillment at work for many people.” You list a number of conversations, the Surgeon General’s report, but no data showing that this is true. 3. “Detachment from work is not good for us as individuals or for society. We gain a deep sense of satisfaction from knowing we have done excellent work, not simply minimal or good enough work.” Again, can you share the data showing that detachment from work is not good for us? There are plenty of work-at-home parents who find meaning. Artists who are not part of an office environment. Do these populations lack “deep satisfaction”? Do people who are unable to work in a traditional office environment lack “flourishing” and “fulfillment”?

    It strikes me also, that this essay is rooted in the status quo and represents a specific but narrow segment of society–the white collar office worker.

  4. Hi Helen,
    What you describe does not sound like quiet quitting but finding an appropriate and necessary work-life balance. You do not sound disengaged with your work or that you are doing the minimum. As I noted in the blog, redressing the balance between work and the emphasis and importance placed on it and the other aspects of our lives is a positive step. Quiet quitting just may be going a bit too far in the other direction. We shall see how this trend plays out over time.

  5. Hi Craig,
    Thanks for your comments. Quiet quitting has many facets and layers and this blog could only raise a few. I agree that my frame of reference was white collar workers and office settings. There are other settings which may be experiencing versions of quiet quitting too.

    The part of quiet quitting which gives me pause is the disengagement and detachment as you can gather from the blog. Finding a work-life balance is a positive in my view. Finding things that bring you joy and are fulfilling outside of work is really important. You raise good ideas about looking back to other time periods to see if there are similarities or differences and lessons to be learned. There’s more work to be done on how this trend of quiet quitting will impact individuals, communities and society.

  6. Dear Edward,
    You raise an interesting and broader question about the nature of paid work or employment. Our society does need people to do certain jobs and produce certain goods to function. Being paid a fair or livable wage is a societal and ethical issue. It does allow an individual to meet their basic needs and in some cases those of others such as children or other dependents. Employers have responsibilities to their workers and workers to their employers. The Surgeon General’s report is responding to the changing way people view work and what they need and want from it.

  7. Thank you Mx/Mr/Ms Wasson for responding.

    As you affirm, from my comments, ‘being paid a fair or livable wage’ to produce things that we need – e.g. in my litany, “food, energy, housing, communications, learning, nursing, transportation, antibiotics, and sex toys, etc” – is a ‘social and ethical issue’.

    It is of social and ethical importance because, as you say
    “Detachment from work is not good for us as individuals or for society. We gain a deep sense of satisfaction from knowing we have done excellent work, not simply minimal or good enough work. This doesn’t mean we need to, or should, derive all our worth and value from what we produce, but we benefit from having some stake in our work and thinking that it matters. ”

    This the very reason I commented: to remind us that work is VITALLY important for our whole society to be healthy. The WHOLE of us, not only the individuals of us. This means that there are many different things, many different services, many different creative activities that we need produced. And – from the SG’s report, and your essay – that we need to produce in ways that bring – as you say – ‘deep satisfaction of doing excellent work’.

    In this light I affirm Mx/Ms/Mr Klugman’s comment that we must look beyond a status quo defined by elite sorts of work. I have lived most of my decades in rural working class places. I was election official for many years in my rural precinct. Our voters often voted just as we opened at 6AM BECAUSE they had some manual or service job to get to, and a considerable drive out of the rural area to get to it; OR they came to work after the work day, often, as I say, ‘with grass or dirt stains, grease or oil stains, sweat stains, and sometimes blood stains’. In the pandemic we might call many of them ‘essential’ workers’, or in a form someone coined (I cannot find who), these are among the ‘physicals’ – who cannot work from home on their own schedule exploring meaningful work-life balance’- vs the ‘virtuals’ who can do.

    Down the road from Hastings, economists with a local ‘paper of record’, NYT, opines about rural working class people in a way that would benefit from your commentary. Eduardo Porter, for example, says
    “The most helpful policy for people in small towns could be to relax zoning rules in dense cities like New York and San Francisco, so that more affordable housing could be built to receive newcomers from rural Wisconsin or Kentucky, and they wouldn’t need the income of an investment banker or a computer scientist to afford to live there” ( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/14/opinion/rural-america-trump-decline.html ). And Paul Krugman says
    “major federal programs disproportionately benefit rural areas, in part because such areas have a disproportionate number of seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare … because rural America is poorer than urban America, it pays much less per person in federal taxes, so in practice major metropolitan areas hugely subsidize the countryside. These subsidies don’t just support incomes; they support economies: Government and the so-called health care and social assistance sector each employ more people in rural America than agriculture, and what do you think pays for those jobs?”

    These elite, affluently compensated, and culturally feted economists lecture (rural) working class people about their inferiority: their intelligence is inferior, their moral vigor is inferior, their bodies and minds are ill, their gene pools are inferior … and, no surprise, their work ethic is inferior. They are a burden on ‘their betters’ because they are inferior, in all these ways, Socially constructing a de-valued, minoritized group as an inferior caste – inferior in as many ways as you can name – is not very different from early 20th century ‘Progressive Era’ elites eugenical social constructions. And we know how that turned out.

    Porter and Krugman call rural working class people ‘quitters’; but not in the polite manner of your essay. Krugman argues that rural working people’s resentment – expressed in electoral politics – is baseless. But, Krugman’s ‘tone of voice’ is thoroughly resentful of rural working class people.

    Of course the people Krugman resents didn’t ‘quit’ work; mostly, their workplaces ‘quit’ them. Where I live now in very rural Virginia, the Southside ( the ‘top hat’ of the Southern Black Belt, to mix metaphors) factories where once working class people – including multiple generations of the same family – had good paying, jobs – that they took great pride in, and would never ‘quiet quit’ – are vacant and falling down, from 40 years of disinvestment, ‘global finance’, social neglect, etc.

    These working class people did not ‘quiet quit’. They were quit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *