Quiet Quitting and the Choices vs Consequences paradox

Everything we do (or not do) in our lives ultimately takes its roots in the choices we make. Right from our morning cuppa and news dailies to grocery purchases and meal-ordering, it’s all about the plethora of options that present before us, leaving us to choose some over others, and eventually leading to their own but differing consequences. More often than not, the options are mutually exclusive, making the seemingly linear relationship more complex and non-linear.

Social media, of late has been abuzz with ‘Quiet Quitting’ which has been trending hot, with opinions, views and commentary pouring in from various quarters, ranging from employers and employees to psychologists and wellness coaches. The latest catchphrase, while it sounds newsy and makes for a meaty headline, is the situation leading to it actually alarming? Or put differently, is quiet quitting a choice or a consequence?

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

To me, the phrase in itself appears incongruent and is a euphemism to portray the darker side of constant hustling and the ‘rise and grind’ culture, that’s been around for a while. Much like how the Covid-19 pandemic paved way for ‘revenge shopping/travel’, quiet quitting may have found its origins in ‘The Great Resignation’ saga, where instead of taking a complete exit, employees are slowing down, delineating work and adopting a middle-ground approach. Doesn’t this go back to the age-old concept of a balanced living that proponents of modern-day work-life balance theories have been vociferously debating? It does, but has its own new spin and a different take, thanks to the rising share and influence of Gen Zers in the workforce. This generational cohort’s decisions and behaviours are anchored in one key element – instant gratification. Needless to say, the pendulum keeps swinging at the click of a finger or a swipe of a screen. According to a recent survey by Axios/Generation Lab, 82% of Gen Zers say the idea of doing the minimum required to keep their jobs is pretty or extremely appealing, and 15% of them are already doing it. Now, that brings me back to my question, is quiet quitting a choice or a consequence?

In the current context, this can be seen as a consequence of a choice made to embrace the ‘hustle and grind’ culture that promised hefty hikes, fast-tracked promotions, big fat bonuses and bountiful perks. Sure, this entails some trade-offs, like most decisions do. Longer work days/weeks, less/no time for family, hobbies and interests, and greater stress. But isn’t this a design-by-default that comes with the choice? And shouldn’t one be fully cognizant of it when making the choice? The answer is a simple yes, but this is where it gets a little too complicated.

The choices we make, be it at home, in office or elsewhere, are driven by a multitude of variables that primarily include preferences, priorities and purpose. Each of these are linked to a time horizon making the associated choice a target on a moving scale. Preferences are short-term and usually keep changing, priorities tend to stick around for slightly longer and purpose is what defines the larger goal of one’s life. A doctor works tirelessly and attends to emergencies even if it’s on her child’s birthday; a soldier relentlessly fights at the battleground knowing very well he may not be home for a festive celebration; a police officer stands guarding a government quarter against a rogue armed militant on his wedding anniversary.

Do you see a common thread running across them? In all the three cases, the choices are made knowing the consequences, importantly they align with the purpose of life, which is contributing to the greater good. Well, you could argue not all professions lead to that. Fair point. But then, all professions do come with own sets of pros and cons, making the ensuing tradeoffs inevitable. Why then, those of us in the business/corporate sector alone crying foul? Businesses too exist for a purpose – to make profits and create wealth. In that process, they contribute to nation building and economic development. Isn’t that a public good? Smart cities, giant edifices and underground motorways are only possible because of business innovation, technological advancement and entrepreneurship.

The key to understanding the choices vs consequences paradox lies in what I call a 4C matrix (see figure above).

The choices are determined by two sets of opposing forces – consciousness and compulsiveness. The results of these translate into opposing outcomes – contentment and conflict. In essence, choices that are done consciously, after proper deliberation result in outcomes that bring a greater sense of fulfilment. On the contrary, compulsive choices made with short-sightedness and tactical goals often result in conflict and disillusionment.

The next time you are at crossroads or thinking of quiet-quitting, reflect upon this and take a pause. If nothing, this simple framework can guide you course-correct, help you discover your life’s purpose and align your choices to it.