POV: Can quiet quitting be seen as a legitimate response to workplace dissatisfaction?

The rise of quiet quitting has reshaped how we understand employee engagement. No longer just about clocking in and out, it represents a deeper emotional detachment—one that often goes unnoticed until the resignation letter lands on a manager’s desk. As generational attitudes shift and workplace expectations become more nuanced, organisations are grappling with a difficult truth: disengagement rarely happens overnight. It builds slowly, quietly and sometimes invisibly.

So is quiet quitting a justified reaction to workplace dissatisfaction, or is it a sign that communication, empathy and leadership aren’t keeping pace with evolving needs? We spoke with HR leaders to explore this deeply human phenomenon.

Anuradha Das, chief people officer, Jeh Aerospace

The answer isn’t binary—it’s both, and then some. Quiet quitting emerges from a mix of workplace dissatisfaction, communication gaps and a generational shift that employers cannot afford to ignore.

Today’s workforce is emotionally more sensitive and requires feedback delivered with great care. Unlike previous generations who were bound to work by financial responsibilities and family commitments, this generation has more options, making it easier to detach, step back or quit without hesitation. Whether it’s studying abroad, travelling or simply taking a break, disengagement now comes effortlessly.

To respond, we’ve doubled down on building genuine human connection. Quarterly check-ins, regular Gemba walks—where leaders speak informally to employees on the shop floor—and everyday conversations beyond work are now part of our culture. Even subtle cues, like someone repeatedly eating alone, are treated as early signs that they may be struggling.

Mental-health support through therapy and counselling is integrated without stigma. On the shop floor, breakout areas with table tennis, badminton, carrom and foosball are transforming the once-rigid image of manufacturing. Family days and informal interactions ensure employees feel they belong.

The key is sincerity. Small gestures, when done with genuine intent rather than as checkboxes, make people feel they own this place. The results are visible—retention sits at 94 per cent, and we’re maintaining single-digit attrition through these consistent efforts.

Takeaway: Quiet quitting reflects both workplace gaps and generational shifts—genuine human connection and sincere engagement can reverse the trend before it takes hold.

Deepa Zacharias, CHRO, PayU

Quiet quitting is a familiar pattern—one that mirrors what most employees experience at some point in their careers. People almost always disengage mentally before they formally resign, and quiet quitting refers precisely to this silent first step.

Regardless of the trigger, once an employee has mentally checked out, organisations lose the chance to re-engage them. Instead of focusing solely on why quiet quitting happens, the real shift lies in preventing it. That means identifying the signals that matter to employees and building listening systems that encourage them to speak up before they detach internally.

Creating such an environment requires trust-based communication and hyper-personalisation. No two triggers are identical: for one employee, it may be work-life balance; for another, learning and growth; for someone else, psychological safety. Understanding these individual drivers is the next big challenge.

The goal is creating a culture where someone would rather talk to their manager first, instead of making the internal decision to quietly quit. The organisations that succeed will be those that not only detect early disengagement but also respond with personalised, meaningful engagement.

Takeaway: Quiet quitting is the silent first step before resignation—organisations must build listening systems and hyper-personalised engagement to prevent mental checkout

Aparna Sardar, country head – HR, 3M India

The problem isn’t disengagement—it’s the label itself.

We need to create a culture of openness and transparency where people can have honest conversations about why discretionary effort may be a stretch, rather than labelling them as ‘quiet quitters.’

Instead of classifying employees as disengaged or uncommitted, organisations should ask why discretionary effort feels out of reach. Is the person overwhelmed? Undersupported? Misaligned? Or simply operating with different boundaries and expectations?

When organisations use phrases like ‘quiet quitter,’ they inadvertently stigmatise employees and shut down the very dialogue needed to rebuild trust. Instead, treat quiet quitting as a signal—a prompt to explore what’s not working before resentment begins to calcify.

The real solution lies in psychological safety. Employees should be able to say, “I’m struggling,” “I’m burnt out,” or “I’m feeling disconnected,” without fear of being labelled or punished. Quiet quitting isn’t a performance issue—it’s an opportunity to reset expectations, revisit workloads and rebuild clarity. When organisations move away from labels and lean into conversations, disengagement becomes easier to address, and employees are more willing to re-engage.

Takeaway: Stop labelling and start listening—quiet quitting is a signal for dialogue, not a performance issue, and psychological safety is the key to re-engagement