This should raise more questions than answers.

Generalized solutions with sweeping statements won’t work here. Neither will a quote from a 'guru' who has written about leadership but not actually done it.
It’s not a “5 top ways to…” piece.

We need to think about the middle leaders’ part in Quiet Quitting. Yes. That new thing that has been around for as long as people have been employed. Its name doesn’t sit right with us either, but now isn’t the time to discuss that.
Commenters and contributors are writing a lot about what Quiet Quitting actually is. This is reasonably helpful but let’s not forget, we’ve always had the ‘minimal effort crew’.

We ask: is this the same?
I’ve spent hours reading about Quiet Quitting. As you would expect, there are different views. This is good, but it highlights the problem it poses for leadership at all levels. A LinkedIn thread responding to an Arianna Huffington post, has many shades of different opinions. There is a range of comments responding to this view:

 “Going above and beyond doesn’t have to mean allowing ourselves to be burned out. Pushing ourselves beyond the bare minimum is how we grow, evolve and expand our possibilities.”

Whilst a lot agree, the opposition is vocal. Posters point at “toxic bosses”, organisations that couldn’t care less about their workers conditions and that “Quiet Quitting is “unhuman”.
Others say that it is give and take, a two-way street and that knowing yourself is important.
The discussion can get deep. Away from LinkedIn: In the 29 August article for Business Insider, ‘Quiet quitting' is nothing but pro-boss propaganda, Ed Zitron reckons most of what is written about it is little more than ‘boss victimization’ when actually it is a simple act of workers doing something called ‘going to work’. He argues that it is not workers refusing to take their jobs seriously as is portrayed in a lot of current comments and articles, but more like propaganda to punish workers for not doing unpaid labour.


But perhaps the roots are here. In McKinsey Quarterly (Jan 2022) Aaron De Smet and Adria Horn suggest that employers are not sure why employees are “leaving in droves”.
This raises the question: Is the Great Resignation at the opposite end of the spectrum where the Great Quiet Quit starts?
The article goes on to suggest that we weren’t prepared for the trauma and disruption over the last two years. Good point. How can we set our expectations when we don’t know what the expectations are based on? Is this powering Quiet Quitting?

How do middle leaders fit into this? You can expect that every conflicting view and any shade of opinion can be had by your team members and your managers.
MTi CEO Richard Bradley can see the problem. “You get top managers who demand that certain targets are met but a lot of the time those expectations don’t match the provision they give.
The workforce is saying ‘We’re going flat out! We need help here’. This needs to be relayed to senior people. Good middle leaders can do this.”
Richard believes that a lot of organisations need a re-set. The work he has done to develop MTi’s Team Evaluation Review will help here. Where is your team? What are their expectations?

We know that effective middle leaders and managers are alert to quiet quitters. They are in a good position to uncover why they have taken on this stance and judge if their actions have a genuine cause. Are they skiving or are expectations outstripping realistic worker capacity?

Let’s make no mistake, attitudes are changing and a lot of us have new expectations - expectations of our managers and their expectations of us. Middle leaders need to be part of the two-way communication that helps this happen.
Organisational culture needs to be built around inviting and expecting middle manager input. That way, expectations will be better understood and Quiet Quitting not needed.


There's more to come on this.

​The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) sent out an article recently* saying how ‘ownership mentality’ is needed to drive change and how it needs to be part of an organisation’s culture.
This has been understood for a long time. But from what I see, I can only assume that it must be easier said than done - because we come it very often. Why is it taking so long to get widely established?
Part of the answer is the focus of CCL’s research, not the findings. In particular, consider the people they surveyed. There is a lot of talk about discussions with VPs, directors and C-suite executives. If you want whole organisational buy-in of a vision, don’t place so much value on what those at the top of the hierarchy think. Get middle leaders involved. This will help embed the culture needed to make the vision work.
The usual comments about getting “commitment from everyone involved” and “clear communication” from leaders appear. This is accepted advice. But this in itself is a contradiction when considering the people whose opinion they seek. It supports the thinking that everyone needs to be involved, yet not everyone is surveyed. This is where middle leaders can drive performance. They need to be involved in surveys because they know the mood of the wider workforce.
The article cites these top level people recognising a disconnection between the current culture in an organisation and the “needed culture to implement the future-proof strategy”. Key question: Why is there a disconnect? Where is the break in communicating the vision? It must be somewhere in the middle.
An interesting section is where CCL Chief Research and Innovation Officer David Altman introduces the notion of ‘renters’ – who may be responsible for the gap, and ‘owners’ – who are fully aligned. This is valuable. I have a simplified take on it.
He describes ‘renters’ as employees who don’t feel they have a say in any decisions about the future. They don’t feel any sense of responsibility. I suggest that there are probably two reasons for this:

1. These employees are quite happy not having any say in things.  Or,
2. They haven’t been given the chance to contribute.

Permission and delegated authority need to given from higher up. It’s all very well criticising ‘renters’ but if they don’t feel their views are invited or accepted, they won’t bother.
 
‘Owners’ on the other hand, “take responsibility for their team and organization” and let everyone know they are committed to the cause.
The reasons for this?

1. They are keen to take on this responsibility.
2. They are allowed to and genuinely encouraged.

We think this is where middle leaders play a significant part. By their very nature, good middle leaders will be looking for chances to influence their organization’s culture. They know their team members and how to motivate them to become ‘owners’.
An effective middle leader will work at giving everyone the chance to contribute and then value the input. If they can see that certain team members aren’t fussed about it or would rather not bother, then they will tailor work around them. If they get complaints from self-identified ‘renters’, they can at least tell them that they were given the chance.
Time and effort can then be put to more effective use with employees who want to be part of the change. And make no mistake – time and effort will be needed. A good understanding of distributed and delegated leadership is required.
But above all, this will only work if middle leaders are given the permission and power to get it done properly. In order for this to happen, some middle leaders will have to ask for these tools. They aren’t always offered.
This is where ownership mentality works both ways. Middle leaders need to be owners of upward influence, especially if they are needed to change a culture and move the whole organisation forward.
Being part of culture change at middle leadership level is perfect preparation for senior leadership and that benefits everyone.
 
*original date 19 May 2020