Quiet Quitting

For better or worse, when I first started out, and the first 2 companies I worked, there were something like 10-15 layers from me to the CEO. This created a hypothetical ladder of responsibilities and titles I felt I could climb, with rungs 3-5 years apart, getting wider the higher you go.

In more recent roles, I have been in 3000 person organizations where even as an IC, I am known to, and speak with, people in the C-suite short of the CEO. I work for someone with 50 people in org, who works for someone with 1500 in their org, who works for the CEO.

A lot of these radically flat orgs expect ICs as "senior engineers" or "staff engineers" or some other made up title to do some ad-hoc mix of IC, people management, project management, etc.

In effect a lot of us get asked to do a job we don't have, and in fact, will never have, given the 50:1, 1500:1, and 3000:1 ratios from IC to each of the 3 levels on the ladder.

The second dimension is that software project lifecycles have always been shorter than traditional engineering, and have become shorter. This leads to a lot of hopping between firms as your project hits peak and is on the disinvest cycle.

First off, just stop saying “quiet quitting” this way. Doing your job isn’t quiet quitting. We should be suspicious of any term like this that suddenly spreads across mass media.

This is the monopoly guys of the world trying to label and shame people for having boundaries and realizing that their hamster wheel leads nowhere. Working hard for someone else’s gain just wastes the one life we were given to us.

If there is a legitimate use for a term called “quiet quitting,” that would be more like pretending to work and legitimately slacking. Completing the required job generally on time isn’t quiet quitting.

The article treats this introduction of healthy boundaries by the youngest generation as if it’s a problem for companies to solve, and suggests that employers start to recognize employees’ accomplishments more.

If what companies want is extremely dedicated employees, I say, that recognition isn’t nearly enough.

Here’s the thing: younger employees are simply following the incentives that corporations are giving them.

Corporations don’t even incentivize extra hard work despite asking for it! They don’t offer commissions or profit sharing unless you’re in sales. They don’t give out bonuses for putting in extra hours or delivering work early. The equity they offer is worthless bullshit that’s filled with caveats.

Corporations rarely promote from within, they hire outside managers and friends of current management, double the word “rarely” if you’re a woman or minority.

Corporations don’t incentivize long tenures, they’d rather you leave or be laid off so that they can run the company like a pro sports team and optimize their labor force. If a team is misallocated, they’d rather lay off the team and hire a whole set of new employees where they’re needed. Retraining and cross-training don’t fit on their balance sheets.

Finally, corporations don’t keep salary increases paced with inflation or career growth so they incentivize job changes.

If you want me to dedicate my life to your company, you better be doing a whole hell of a lot better. Just because I like the work I do doesn’t mean I have better things I can do with my time that I enjoy more.

I’m out of here by 4. If you don’t like it, find someone else.

I guess it depends on what you're looking for. If you just want to chill, that seems reasonable.

But if you're a climber, it seems reasonable to put in work and ask for extra responsibility that will help you get a better job the next time you switch companies. As long as you put yourself on a timer and switch regularly, I don't see that as being taken advantage of.

I certainly wouldn't fault people for disagreeing with me about this, though.