New words for the same old, same old – how useful is HR jargon?

“Jargon: special words or expressions used by a profession or group
that are difficult for others to understand.”

(Oxford University press)

Like any other profession or field, human resources has plenty of jargon. And since the pandemic, we’ve seen a new category of terms emerge, dealing with employee behaviour. It all started with ‘quiet quitting’, a phrase that was (and still is) embraced by the press…

So much for the media frenzy. But is quiet quitting (plus the rest of the gang: ‘quiet hiring’, ‘loud quitting’, ‘quiet thriving’, ‘quiet promotion’, and so on…)* a useful phrase, or a useful concept?

What is quiet quitting?

A ‘quiet quitter’ is described as having become disengaged from the organisation, fulfilling the minimum requirements of their role and no more – unwilling to ‘go the extra mile’ or take on anything extra to their contractually defined duties.

This is usually attributed to stress, burnout, a lack of passion, or just not caring and is usually presented as a problem for employers (Forbes described quiet quitting as “troubling trend” in 2023).

Well, it depends on how you look at it.

Quiet quitting is not a new idea

The press tends to push the employer perspective. But what are they actually describing?

Q: What exactly is a quiet quitter refusing to do?

A: Anything above and beyond their role.

So… they’re doing the job? Yes. Everything they’re contracted to do? Yes. So, they’re fulfilling their side of the employment bargain? Absolutely. If they were performing below standard in some way, it would be classed as poor performance, and there are procedures for that. Equally, if their behaviour, the way in which they did their job fell short of company standards, that would likely be a disciplinary issue. And there are established procedures for that too.

Quiet quitters keep their heads down. They do their job. They don’t volunteer for overtime or extra work. No special projects. No suggesting improvement around the office. Productivity may be less than their colleagues but within the company’s defined standards and requirements. Out-of-hours team activities are a no-no;  Their productivity may drop (though not below the level of your base performance standards). Team events and get-togethers are a no-no; as is checking work emails at home.

From the employer’s point of view, this could be a problem, sure – after all, employee engagement is the perennial hot topic because most businesses only thrive by getting their workforce to do the extras.

From the worker’s point of view, quiet quitting might seem like reasonable work-life balance.

Which brings to the practical difficulty with this (or any) jargon:

“The term ‘quiet quitting’ is difficult to define, said Yongseok Shin, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Although some interpret it as a way to increase work-life balance, others define it as a way to recoup unpaid or unappreciated hours of service.” (LATimes.com)

In other words, the meaning of the phrase depends on who is using it. Which brings us back to whether quiet quitting is a useful concept or not.

What is ‘good’ jargon?

A new phrase, any new terminology, should be useful, no? Otherwise what’s the point? Does it describe something new for which we don’t have a label? Or does it describe something that already exists but more precisely, or more relevantly than previous labels?

Quiet quitting isn’t new. And arguably, given that a quiet quitter is not actually quitting their job, it’s not particularly precise either (the well-established phrase “work to rule” remains much more accurate).

So, is it at least useful?

To whom? Not to the workers who may feel unfairly demonised by the phrase (remember, quiet quitters are not breaching their employment contract). In that sense, it’s not especially useful to employers (when did generalised criticism of your workforce last improve productivity, efficiency, or bottom-line results?)

That said, as an emotive phrase that might appear ‘new’, quiet quitting has generated plenty of articles, online and in print. (Including this one, damn it!)

As unnecessary jargon, quiet quitting serves the interests of neither workers nor employers. But it does seem to be useful clickbait for journalists and pundits… who are rarely quiet and don’t seem in any danger of quitting.

---

* By the way…

Loud quitting is the act of talking about leaving the job, in the hope of being offered incentives to stay.
Quiet hiring is the employer filling vacant roles internally, without a formal or external hiring process.
Quiet thriving is employees actively looking for fulfilment or enjoyment in their current role.
Quiet promotion is an employee taking on extra responsibilities without formal promotion or salary bump.