Picture the following.
An employee arrives on time. They finish the tasks they were given. They do not miss deadlines. They cause no trouble.
But they do not stay late. They do not volunteer for extra projects. They do not put in the additional effort.
They do exactly what the job description says. No less, and no more.
Is that a problem? Or is it, in fact, entirely reasonable?
In recent years this behaviour has picked up a popular name: quiet quitting. The employee formally stays with the organisation but psychologically withdraws from the work. They do not leave; they simply stop supplying extra energy and engagement.
The question is whether this is a new phenomenon, or a new name for problems organisations have always had.
What does quiet quitting actually mean?
The term took off in 2022 on social media and in the press. In substance it describes a situation where an employee decides to do the minimum that is expected of them, without additional effort or initiative.
One thing is worth stating plainly.
Quiet quitting is not the same as leaving.
The employee stays. What changes is their relationship to the work. Instead of actively investing energy, the focus shifts to conserving personal resources, time, and the balance between work and life.
Some authors argue that quiet quitting is in fact an energy-conservation strategy, particularly in contexts where employees feel their effort is neither recognised nor rewarded (Nguyen et al., 2024).
But what brings an employee to make that internal turn?
Is quiet quitting really a motivation problem?
One way to understand it is through Self-Determination Theory, which describes three basic psychological needs at work:
- the need for autonomy - a sense of control over one's own work
- the need for competence - a sense of being capable and effective at what one does
- the need for relatedness - a sense of belonging and good relationships with others
When those needs are met, people show more energy, more initiative and more persistence. When they are not, motivation begins to weaken (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2016).
In other words, perhaps the question is not:
Why do employees not want to do more?
Perhaps the better question is:
Why would they want to do more, if their basic psychological needs are not being met?
Research shows that reduced autonomy, an absence of recognition, a poor relationship with a manager, and a sense of unfairness all substantially reduce motivation (Van den Broeck et al., 2016).
Under those conditions, withdrawing discretionary effort becomes a rational strategy.
Are younger employees more prone to it?
A common question is whether quiet quitting is mostly a younger-generation phenomenon.
The research gives a partly affirmative answer.
An analysis of working-hours data in the United Kingdom found that the drop in additional effort is most pronounced among Generation Z and millennials, while among older employees the trend is considerably weaker (Rodwell, 2024). In that study, younger employees cut extra hours the most after the pandemic, while older generations showed more stable working patterns.
Why?
There are several plausible explanations. Younger generations:
- have higher expectations of work
- place more value on the balance between work and private life
- accept hierarchical management models less readily
- expect a clearer sense of meaning and purpose
In some research, 65% of younger employees report dissatisfaction with their working environment - considerably more than older workers (Kasperczuk et al., 2025).
In other words, the difference may not be in the work ethic of a generation, but in what people expect from work in the first place.
What do organisations often get wrong?
When quiet quitting appears, the organisational response usually goes in one of two directions.
The first is more control: more monitoring, more reporting, more supervision.
The second is more external motivation: bonuses, rewards, additional benefits.
Research suggests neither reliably solves it.
Why? Because quiet quitting is often not a consequence of insufficient rewards, but of an absent psychological experience of meaning and autonomy.
If an employee feels they have no influence over their own work, that their effort goes unnoticed, or that relationships in the team are poor, an additional bonus does not touch the substance of the problem. In that situation the thought is a simple one:
Why would I give more than is asked?
What does it actually look like?
Quiet quitting rarely looks dramatic. It usually shows up as small changes in behaviour:
- reduced initiative
- avoiding additional tasks
- minimal participation in meetings
- fewer creative suggestions
- emotional distance from the organisation
People do their jobs perfectly correctly, but what disappears is what organisations often call discretionary effort - the extra engagement that was never formally required.
In some cases it is also a defence against burnout, particularly where job demands are high and support is limited.
Does this happen in Serbia?
There is, so far, no systematic academic research measuring quiet quitting in Serbia directly.
However, research on motivation and engagement points to similar patterns. Regional engagement studies find that a significant share of employees:
- do not feel a strong connection to their organisation
- do not see clear opportunities for development
- believe their effort is not adequately recognised
In practice, HR professionals report the same pattern: employees formally remain, while their level of engagement declines over time.
Which suggests the real question might be:
Are we only now starting to recognise it?
What can organisations do?
If the problem is bound up with employees' psychological needs, that is also where the solutions live.
Research shows engagement rises when organisations:
1. Increase autonomy at work. Employees with more room to decide how they work show higher motivation and satisfaction (Van den Broeck et al., 2016).
2. Provide development and a sense of progress. When people can see themselves developing skills and advancing, their sense of competence grows.
3. Strengthen the quality of relationships. Manager support and good relationships within a team have a substantial effect on motivation and wellbeing (Nguyen et al., 2024).
In other words, the answer is not necessarily to increase pressure on employees. Sometimes the answer is to create conditions in which people want to give more.
In closing: perhaps the question is wrong
When we talk about quiet quitting, we tend to ask:
Why do employees no longer want to engage?
A better question might be:
What has changed in how people experience work?
If a job no longer provides a sense of autonomy, development and belonging, reduced engagement is an expected reaction rather than a mystery.
In that sense, quiet quitting may not be a new phenomenon at all. It may simply be a new name for an old question about motivation at work.
