A businesswoman working late hours in the office.
The relationship between American employers and their employees has been in constant flux over the past few years. Observers have used a succession of terms to try to explain it. First, there was “The Great Resignation.” Then “quiet quitting.” Most recently, some worry that “extreme citizenship behaviors” may be a new kind of workaholism.
What if these disparate phenomena are all symptoms of the same underlying problem? Is there something fundamentally broken in the social contract between employer and employee?
Beyond the extra mile
Let us look at that group of employees who seem so engaged and committed that they are willing to go the extra mile. That is a good thing, right? Actually, it depends.
Researchers have long known that what they call “citizenship behaviors” (staying late to meet a deadline, helping a colleague finish a report) are generally positive and enhance both individual and company performance. But when that commitment becomes extreme (working during vacation, canceling time spent with family or loved ones), employees risk crossing healthy work-life boundaries and invite burnout.
A new survey of knowledge workers finds that a large majority (93%) said they had engaged in some form of extreme citizenship behavior. While some of those surveyed seem intrinsically motivated and expressed pride in their extra effort, a substantial number (38%) expressed regret and worried their need to go beyond the extra mile might be unhealthy.
Is “quitting” the right word?
If extreme citizens are hyper-engaged, quiet quitters are less so. But they are only partially disengaged, so is quitting a fair term? One expert argues that “calibrated contributing” is a more accurate description. After all, these employees continue to fulfill their assigned duties; they are just reluctant to go beyond those core responsibilities.
This behavior could be a sign that these employees feel the returns on giving extra are not worth it. Perhaps they were giving extra before and felt the employer was not meeting them halfway, so they have decided to pull back. Some of my executive coaching clients talk about consciously tapping the brakes when they feel overwhelmed or have to deal with a toxic work culture. One could argue that this is a healthy tactic to stave off burnout.
More employers need to fulfill their end of the deal. The 2022 Gallup State of the Workplace report found that employee stress was at an all-time high. Moreover, only 24% of employees feel their employer cares about their well-being.
A broken psychological contract
Employees making a calculated decision to dial back their efforts at work sound like they view their relationship with their job and employer as largely transactional. This stands in contrast to a more relational and reciprocal connection in which both parties feel equally invested and where both feel it is in their interest to give their all. Employees feel inspired to bring their best selves to work. And employers are committed to holistic support of their employees so they can thrive personally and professionally.
When that reciprocity is missing, it may be the sign of a broken psychological contract between employers and employees. Employees leaving their jobs during The Great Resignation registered similar feelings. While a solid majority (78%) reported being “eager” to provide feedback to their employer, almost half (45%) did not feel their input led to meaningful change.
In other words, employees wanted their jobs to provide purpose and meaning and had ideas about making their company a great workplace. But they felt their employers needed to be more willing partners in making that happen.
Two sides of the same coin
So quiet quitters and over-workers have more in common than we might think. With overwhelming work demands and an employer unwilling to reciprocate or tailor a sustainable workload, quiet quitters have decided to pull back. They may feel they have the leverage to do so—that they can give less than their best and still hold onto their jobs. (Resigners have a different kind of leverage: the confidence that they have better options.)
Some who engage in extreme citizenship behavior might do so from intrinsic motivation. But perhaps others act out of fear of losing their jobs or not getting the promotion they had planned. Employers and managers must ask themselves: Is today’s willing workaholic tomorrow’s quiet quitter?
The two phenomena are connected in another way as well. Companies seeking a competitive advantage need those employees ready to go the extra mile. If fewer employees are willing to give this 110%, the burden of providing the necessary competitive edge will fall on fewer employees, perhaps employees with less leverage and fewer options. All of which will increase the likelihood of future burnout and turnover.
The bottom line is that the solution to all of these issues is the same: creating a sustainable work culture where excellence and well-being can co-exist. Employers cannot create such cultures without building (and in some cases rebuilding) trust with their employees.
Restoring a broken or strained psychological contract starts with listening. What do employees need to thrive in the long run? What kind of workload is manageable while leaving them that little extra in the tank when they need it and also leaves them with the energy to thrive outside of work? What ideas do they have for making this a better workplace?
If business leaders do not ask themselves these questions, they will find a growing number of employees willing to walk out the door, or who stay but withhold their best, or who give their all and burn out. None of these options is optimal.
