An expression with different meanings
The quiet quitting label brings together different conversations: strictly fulfilling agreed duties, no longer taking on unrecognised additional tasks or feeling detached from an organisation. Before using it, explain which behaviour or experience is being described. Someone can respect working hours and perform excellent work; another person may express dissatisfaction while still taking on extra responsibilities.
The expression can therefore open a discussion but is imprecise as an individual assessment criterion. It does not establish unprofessional behaviour, illness or job abandonment. This article proposes separating three questions: what the job actually requires, what conditions exist to do it and what difficulties the person reports. Each requires different evidence and responsibilities. Combining them into one judgement about attitude can conceal a practical problem that the organisation could address.
Interpreting statistics and research
Gallup linked quiet quitting to its category of employees who were not engaged in a US survey conducted in June 2022. That is one source’s operational definition, not a clinical prevalence estimate or an updated worldwide count of quiet quitting.
When comparing studies, check the meaning assigned to the expression, questions, country and date. Two percentages may measure different phenomena despite sharing a headline. An association between satisfaction and engagement responses also does not establish individual causation. Research can inform questions about work; it does not automatically identify someone breaching their duties. An employer adopting a survey needs to understand its measurement and which decisions it can support, without turning an aggregate result into a personal label or a claim about a particular employee’s intentions.
Sources: [1]
Digital disconnection and work boundaries
Article 88 of Spain’s Organic Law 3/2018 recognises digital disconnection outside established working time and requires an internal policy after hearing employee representatives. Its exercise needs to be considered within the applicable framework.
Not answering messages during rest does not demonstrate disengagement. Where a service needs availability or on-call cover, conditions should be defined and analysed against relevant rules and agreements. Night-time connectivity is not a sound measure of commitment, and rewarding informal availability can conceal inadequate coverage. The proposed preventive approach makes clear what counts as work, what response is expected and which channel operates during the relevant period. Routine urgency should not become a permanent informal extension of working hours. Other jurisdictions require their own legal checks.
Sources: [2]
What emotional absenteeism means and does not measure
Emotional absenteeism is a metaphor used to describe physical presence accompanied by perceived detachment or limited involvement. It is not equivalent to recorded absence, illness or a standardised indicator that software can directly infer. Nor should it be confused with working while ill, which requires separate analysis.
Before putting the metaphor into a dashboard, replace it with verifiable questions: whether priorities are understood, suggestions receive responses and people can raise difficulties. Clicks, messages or meeting counts do not measure emotional connection. Treating those traces as proof may penalise different working styles, concentration tasks or responsibilities that are poorly represented in digital systems. A person’s contribution may be substantial even when the available software captures little of the activity involved.
Organisational conditions relevant to OSH
EU-OSHA locates psychosocial risks in work design, organisation and social context. This perspective supports examination of conditions without treating the problem as an individual defect. Worker and representative participation belongs within preventive management.
A review can examine whether workloads are achievable, support exists for resolving problems and decisions affecting work are explained. Perceived unequal treatment or ignored suggestions deserve exploration without assuming every dissatisfaction has a single cause. The appearance of the quiet quitting label does not replace psychosocial risk assessment. At most, it prompts questions about what is happening and which assessment methods are appropriate. Preventive changes should address identified conditions, rather than manufacture visible enthusiasm. Any improvement plan also needs resources and authority to deliver the changes it promises.
Sources: [3]
Clarifying the job and its expectations
HSE’s standards on role emphasise clear responsibilities and compatible demands. They are a reference for managing stress, not a specific instrument for diagnosing quiet quitting.
As a practical application, a manager and team can review regular duties, added work, decisions individuals can make and priorities when time is insufficient. Distinguish job obligations, occasional collaboration and expectations that were never agreed. Expanding responsibilities requires its own process, resources and communication. A clear description does not remove every disagreement but avoids judging someone against an invisible obligation. The review should include safety: who can stop a task, request help or report a failure without relying on personal favours. These responsibilities need to remain workable during busy periods, absences and changes in staffing.
Sources: [4]
Follow-up conversations with concrete consequences
A useful conversation begins with observable examples and allows the person to explain. It can ask what makes work difficult, which changes matter most and what support is missing. Avoid opening with an accusation of disinterest or requiring emotional declarations of loyalty to the employer.
The resulting agreement should identify a concrete action, who can implement it and when it will be reviewed. Where a suggestion cannot be accepted, explaining the reasons and alternatives is clearer than accumulating promises. Performance concerns require facts, known criteria and applicable procedures, separate from assumptions about motivation. Health difficulties call for an appropriate professional route; managers do not diagnose. Follow-up should verify changes made, rather than merely ask whether the employee now feels more committed to the organisation.
Data, privacy and monitoring limits
The Spanish data protection authority’s employment guide, updated in December 2025, addresses minimisation, information and automated decisions. Technical availability of a data point does not justify every employer use; purpose, legal basis and applicable safeguards need examination.
This article proposes avoiding individual profiles of supposed detachment constructed from digital activity. Surveys need defined purposes and understandable confidentiality arrangements. Small groups may allow identification even when names are removed. Participation analysis does not itself authorise access to private conversations or inference of diagnoses. If analytical tools are used, limitations should be explicit and results open to review. A dashboard can track preventive measures; it should not present an emotional absenteeism score as a clinical fact or an established explanation for someone’s behaviour.
Sources: [5]
Protecting preventive participation and safe work
Visible commitment should not be confused with safety. Someone challenging a procedure, asking for resources or reporting a hazard may be contributing directly to protecting the team. Taking on tasks beyond one’s competence is likewise not desirable proof of engagement. Prevention requires clear responsibilities and sufficient resources rather than unlimited availability.
As an organisational approach, separate routes for suggestions, incident reporting and handling disagreement. Communications need a proportionate response and follow-up. If reports decline, check whether conditions improved or people believe reporting achieves nothing. More notifications after introducing an accessible channel may reflect greater trust, not automatically worse behaviour. Interpretation needs context and participation. A programme that discourages criticism to improve apparent commitment may undermine the information needed for effective prevention.
Hypothetical example: expectations grew without resources
A support team stops answering routine enquiries outside working hours, and a manager interprets this as quiet quitting. Reviewing the work reveals extra assignments, conflicting priorities and on-call arrangements that were never defined. Employees continued completing their duties but had stopped informally extending the working day.
The employer clarifies necessary coverage, reviews capacity and organises exceptions within the applicable framework. It also opens discussion about suggestions unanswered for months. Follow-up examines service operation, rest and whether agreements were implemented. The case does not establish that all conflicts have this origin; it shows why an initial label should be replaced with facts. Any genuine performance issue is considered against its own criteria, without treating rest as evidence of disloyalty or assuming that extra hours solve an underlying capacity problem.
Indicators that support decisions and review
Track perceived clarity of responsibilities, responses to suggestions, completed preventive actions and effective task coverage. Document how each measure is obtained, who can access it and which decision it supports. Interpret survey findings alongside work information and participation rather than converting correlations into diagnoses.
Also review whether improvements reach all shifts or transfer workload to other people. Turnover and absence may provide context but have multiple causes and do not independently measure quiet quitting. The aim is not to eliminate supposedly disengaged people. It is understandable, sustainable work with clear duties, adequate resources, respected rest and real opportunities to contribute. Reviewing the quality and implementation of agreements is more useful than demanding a particular display of enthusiasm from every member of the workforce.
Frequently asked questions
Does quiet quitting mean breaching an employment contract?
Not necessarily. The expression has different uses. Any breach requires assessment of obligations, facts and applicable procedures rather than inference from a label.
Does disconnecting outside working hours show poor commitment?
No. Rest and disconnection have their own framework. On-call arrangements or availability should be assessed against their conditions and rules, not informal expectations.
Can software measure emotional absenteeism?
Digital activity is not directly equivalent to an emotional state. Systems can record processes or safeguarded surveys, but should not turn clicks or messages into a diagnosis.
Is the answer simply to motivate employees more?
Motivation does not replace assessment of conditions. Review responsibilities, resources, workloads, support and participation, and verify that agreed measures are implemented.
