Abstract
This dissertation examines how employees interpret and respond to performance expectations following repeated organisational restructures, with particular focus on the phenomenon commonly termed “quiet quitting.” Through a comprehensive literature synthesis, this study analyses peer-reviewed research to understand whether employee decisions to limit effort to formal job requirements represent deliberate disengagement or rational adaptive behaviour. The findings reveal that quiet quitting—defined as deliberately restricting effort to contractual minimums whilst maintaining satisfactory performance—emerges as a protective response to cumulative uncertainty, psychological contract breaches, and eroded trust resulting from successive organisational changes. Rather than constituting simple laziness or misconduct, this behaviour frequently represents strategic withdrawal in response to perceived unfair exchanges between employee effort and organisational reciprocity. The research demonstrates that transparent, participative change management aligned with fair rewards can mitigate these defensive responses. The dissertation concludes that managers who interpret quiet quitting purely as a disciplinary matter risk misdiagnosing signals of broken trust and systemic overload, ultimately undermining efforts to restore productive workplace relationships.
Introduction
Contemporary workplaces face unprecedented levels of organisational change. Mergers, acquisitions, restructures, and strategic pivots have become routine features of organisational life, with many employees experiencing multiple significant changes throughout their careers. Within this context of perpetual transformation, a behavioural phenomenon has emerged that has captured substantial attention from both practitioners and academics: quiet quitting. This term, which gained widespread recognition through social media platforms in 2022, describes employees who fulfil their contractual obligations but deliberately refrain from engaging in discretionary effort or organisational citizenship behaviours.
The academic and practical significance of understanding quiet quitting cannot be overstated. Discretionary effort—sometimes termed extra-role behaviour or organisational citizenship behaviour—has long been recognised as crucial for organisational effectiveness. When employees voluntarily contribute beyond their formal job descriptions, organisations benefit from enhanced innovation, improved customer service, and greater operational flexibility. Consequently, widespread withdrawal of such effort poses significant challenges for organisational performance and competitiveness.
However, the dominant narrative surrounding quiet quitting has frequently framed the behaviour as a problem residing within individual employees—a deficiency of motivation, commitment, or work ethic requiring corrective intervention. This perspective overlooks the potentially rational foundations of such behaviour, particularly when it emerges in response to organisational conditions that employees perceive as unfair, unstable, or exploitative. Understanding quiet quitting through this alternative lens—as adaptive behaviour rather than pathological disengagement—carries profound implications for how organisations manage change and performance expectations.
The relationship between organisational restructuring and employee behavioural responses has received considerable scholarly attention. Research consistently demonstrates that restructuring processes can erode trust, damage psychological contracts, and undermine employee commitment. When restructures occur repeatedly, these effects may compound, creating cumulative psychological strain that fundamentally alters how employees perceive their relationship with their employer. In such circumstances, the decision to limit effort to contractual minimums may represent not laziness but rather a calculated response to perceived organisational unreliability.
This dissertation addresses a critical gap in current understanding by synthesising research that examines quiet quitting specifically within the context of repeated organisational restructures. By integrating scholarship from organisational psychology, change management, and human resource management, this study develops a nuanced understanding of how employees interpret performance expectations when their organisational environment has been repeatedly destabilised. The analysis moves beyond simplistic characterisations of quiet quitting to examine the underlying mechanisms and contextual factors that shape employee decisions regarding discretionary effort.
The contemporary relevance of this investigation extends beyond academic interest. Organisations worldwide continue to implement restructuring programmes in response to economic pressures, technological disruption, and evolving market conditions. Understanding how such changes affect employee behaviour—and specifically why employees may rationally choose to limit their contributions—provides essential guidance for leaders seeking to maintain productive workforces during periods of organisational turbulence. Furthermore, at a time when employee wellbeing and sustainable work practices have gained prominence in public discourse, examining quiet quitting as potentially protective behaviour contributes to broader conversations about the nature of employment relationships in modern economies.
Aim and objectives
Aim
This dissertation aims to critically examine how employees interpret and respond to performance expectations following repeated organisational restructures, specifically investigating whether quiet quitting represents irrational disengagement or rational adaptive behaviour.
Objectives
To achieve this aim, the dissertation pursues the following objectives:
1. To establish a clear conceptual understanding of quiet quitting through analysis of existing definitions, dimensions, and measurement approaches in academic literature.
2. To examine the documented effects of repeated organisational restructuring on employee trust, commitment, and discretionary effort.
3. To identify and analyse the psychological mechanisms linking organisational change to quiet quitting behaviours.
4. To evaluate whether quiet quitting following restructures constitutes rational adaptation to perceived unfair conditions or represents problematic disengagement requiring intervention.
5. To develop evidence-based recommendations for how organisations can manage performance expectations and maintain productive employment relationships during and after restructuring processes.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology, systematically integrating findings from peer-reviewed academic sources to develop a comprehensive understanding of quiet quitting in the context of repeated organisational restructures. Literature synthesis represents an appropriate methodological approach when the research objective involves consolidating diverse scholarly perspectives on a phenomenon that spans multiple disciplinary boundaries.
The literature search strategy focused on identifying peer-reviewed journal articles, academic books, and authoritative grey literature addressing quiet quitting, organisational restructuring, employee engagement, discretionary effort, and psychological contracts. Primary sources were identified through academic databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, using search terms such as “quiet quitting,” “organisational restructuring,” “employee withdrawal,” “discretionary effort,” “organisational citizenship behaviour,” and “psychological contract breach.” Given the recent emergence of quiet quitting as a defined construct, particular attention was paid to publications from 2022 onwards whilst maintaining inclusion of foundational scholarship on related concepts.
The inclusion criteria required sources to be peer-reviewed or published by recognised academic institutions, available in English, and directly relevant to either quiet quitting or the relationship between organisational change and employee behavioural responses. Sources were excluded if they lacked academic rigour, appeared in non-peer-reviewed outlets without institutional backing, or focused exclusively on topics peripheral to the research questions.
The analytical approach involved thematic organisation of identified literature, grouping sources according to their primary contributions to understanding quiet quitting conceptualisation, restructuring effects on employees, psychological mechanisms linking change and withdrawal, and the rationality of adaptive responses. This thematic structure enabled systematic comparison of findings across studies and facilitated identification of areas of scholarly consensus and ongoing debate.
Quality assessment of included sources considered factors including methodological rigour, sample characteristics, theoretical grounding, and publication venue. Particular weight was assigned to empirical studies employing validated measurement instruments and robust analytical techniques, whilst acknowledging the valuable contributions of conceptual and review articles in an emerging field.
The synthesis approach adopted an integrative stance, seeking to develop coherent theoretical understanding from diverse sources rather than merely cataloguing findings. This involved identifying points of convergence and divergence across studies, examining how different theoretical frameworks illuminate aspects of quiet quitting, and constructing an evidence-based narrative addressing the research objectives.
Limitations of this methodology include reliance on existing published research, which may reflect publication bias toward statistically significant or novel findings. Additionally, the recency of quiet quitting as a distinct construct means that longitudinal studies examining its long-term consequences remain scarce. These limitations are acknowledged in interpreting findings and formulating conclusions.
Literature review
Conceptualising quiet quitting
Academic conceptualisation of quiet quitting has developed rapidly since the term gained prominence in popular discourse. Across multiple studies, scholars have converged on a definition characterising quiet quitting as deliberately limiting effort to formal job requirements, declining to volunteer for additional tasks, and prioritising personal wellbeing or work-life balance over discretionary effort. This conceptualisation distinguishes quiet quitting from actual resignation—employees remain in their positions whilst psychologically recalibrating their contribution levels.
Recent scale development work has operationalised quiet quitting through two core dimensions: minimal contribution maintained just above the threshold for dismissal, and feeling comfortable or satisfied with that minimal level of contribution. These dimensions capture both the behavioural manifestation of effort limitation and the psychological acceptance that distinguishes quiet quitting from temporary disengagement during periods of personal difficulty. Importantly, this conceptualisation frames quiet quitting as a stable orientation rather than a transient response.
Scholarly efforts to locate quiet quitting within established theoretical frameworks have identified conceptual links to work withdrawal, organisational cynicism, disengagement, and reduced organisational commitment. However, researchers have emphasised that quiet quitting represents a distinct construct characterised by continued presence combined with deliberate effort limitation. Unlike absenteeism or turnover intention, quiet quitting involves remaining employed whilst fundamentally reconceptualising the employment exchange.
The typical employee interpretation of quiet quitting centres on meeting contractual obligations without exceeding them. Employees engaging in this behaviour commonly articulate their approach as fulfilling the explicit requirements of their role whilst declining to provide additional effort that they perceive as unrecognised, uncompensated, or unlikely to advance their interests. This interpretation positions quiet quitting as a conscious choice regarding effort allocation rather than an inability or unwillingness to contribute.
Motivational analysis reveals that employees frequently cite protection from burnout, unfair demands, or poor leadership as primary drivers of quiet quitting behaviour. This suggests that the phenomenon often emerges as a defensive response to perceived organisational conditions rather than originating in individual dispositional characteristics. The protective framing positions quiet quitting as an adaptive strategy for preserving personal resources in environments perceived as extractive or unsupportive.
The attitudinal dimension of quiet quitting involves psychological detachment from the organisation without necessarily developing hatred or contempt for the job itself. This nuanced emotional stance enables employees to maintain adequate performance whilst withdrawing emotional investment. Such detachment may manifest in reduced identification with organisational goals, diminished concern with organisational outcomes beyond personal responsibilities, and reluctance to engage in behaviours that would strengthen connections to the organisation.
Research has also identified potential risks associated with quiet quitting. Career progression may suffer when employees consistently decline opportunities presenting visibility to decision-makers. Long-term performance may deteriorate as skill development slows without engagement in challenging discretionary activities. Relationship quality with colleagues and supervisors may decline as reduced contribution becomes apparent to others.
Organisational restructuring and employee responses
Research on organisational restructuring, downsizing, and repeated change has documented consistent patterns of employee response that illuminate the context within which quiet quitting behaviour emerges. Central to these findings is the recognition that restructuring processes generate cumulative uncertainty and distrust that fundamentally alter employee orientations toward their organisations.
Qualitative research in elite sport organisations experiencing repeated managerial change provided vivid illustration of this phenomenon. Staff members articulated their response through statements such as “just do what I’m told… You won’t catch me offering my services… I still do my job, I just won’t go the extra mile anymore.” This expression captures the essence of quiet quitting—continued fulfilment of basic responsibilities combined with deliberate withdrawal of discretionary effort. Importantly, this response emerged not from individual deficiency but from accumulated experience of organisational instability.
Studies examining public sector restructuring have identified distinct employee response profiles, with researchers categorising workers as “Flourishers,” “Recoverers,” and “Ambivalents” based on their trajectories during change processes. High structural uncertainty significantly predicted increased anxiety alongside reduced engagement and commitment. These findings demonstrate that employee responses to restructuring are neither uniform nor predetermined but rather shaped by individual interpretations of organisational conditions and available resources.
The psychological contract framework has proven particularly valuable for understanding employee responses to restructuring. When organisations implement structural and operational changes, employees assess whether these changes honour or violate implicit expectations regarding employment terms. Poorly communicated changes that appear to breach psychological contracts provoke dissatisfaction, disengagement, and withdrawal. Critically, these responses represent reactions to perceived violations rather than arbitrary decisions to reduce effort.
Research has documented the protective and adaptive quality of employee responses to repeated change. Employees commonly adopt low-risk strategies that prioritise employment security and personal energy conservation. These strategies include strict adherence to defined role boundaries, avoiding visibility that might attract additional demands or criticism, and narrowing task focus to essential responsibilities. Such approaches represent rational responses to environments where investment in discretionary effort appears unlikely to yield proportionate returns.
The relationship between restructuring frequency and employee response intensity merits particular attention. Evidence suggests that cumulative experience of organisational change creates increasingly entrenched protective orientations. Each successive restructure that fails to deliver promised benefits or that results in perceived unfairness strengthens employee conviction that limiting contribution represents appropriate risk management. This cumulative effect helps explain why quiet quitting may prove particularly prevalent and resistant to intervention in organisations with histories of repeated change.
Psychological mechanisms linking change and withdrawal
Understanding the mechanisms through which organisational change triggers quiet quitting behaviours requires examination of several interconnected psychological processes. Research has identified role stress, job demands-resources dynamics, and organisational learning culture as particularly significant mediating factors.
Role stress theory provides a compelling explanation for withdrawal behaviours following restructuring. When organisational changes create role ambiguity or role conflict, employees experience stress and psychological arousal that promote protective behavioural responses. Researchers have explicitly connected these mechanisms to quiet quitting, arguing that frontline employees facing unclear or contradictory expectations may rationalise effort limitation as an appropriate response to organisational failure to provide adequate role clarity.
The job demands-resources model offers additional explanatory power. Organisational change typically increases job demands through new learning requirements, relationship renegotiation, and heightened performance pressure. Simultaneously, change may deplete resources by disrupting established support networks, eliminating familiar processes, and creating uncertainty about organisational direction. When demands exceed resources, employees experience strain that motivates conservation of remaining resources through effort limitation. However, when organisations provide adequate resources and foster strong identification, change can paradoxically increase engagement.
Identity processes also influence employee responses to restructuring. Organisational change may threaten established identities by eliminating familiar roles, questioning previous competencies, or undermining group memberships. When employees cannot reconstruct positive identities within changed organisational contexts, psychological detachment may follow. This detachment manifests behaviourally as reduced discretionary effort and narrowed contribution scope.
The presence or absence of organisational learning culture significantly moderates employee responses to change. Strong learning cultures provide frameworks for understanding change as opportunity rather than threat and supply resources for adaptation. Research demonstrates that learning culture is positively associated with job satisfaction, performance, and retention during organisational transitions. Conversely, when learning cultures are weak or absent, employees lack interpretive frameworks and adaptive resources, increasing the likelihood of protective withdrawal.
Resilience at both individual and organisational levels shapes the relationship between change and quiet quitting. Organisational resilience—the capacity to anticipate, adapt to, and recover from disruptions—creates conditions supporting constructive employee responses to change. When organisational resilience is evident to employees through transparent communication, consistent leadership, and demonstrated recovery from previous challenges, withdrawal behaviours become less attractive as protective strategies.
The rationality of quiet quitting as adaptive response
Conceptual and review work has increasingly reframed quiet quitting as a response to unmet psychological needs and perceived unfair exchange rather than a deficiency of individual character or motivation. This reframing carries significant implications for how organisations and managers should interpret and respond to the phenomenon.
Social exchange theory provides theoretical grounding for understanding quiet quitting as rational behaviour. Employees continually assess the balance between their contributions and the returns they receive from organisations. When this exchange appears unbalanced—when contributions exceed returns—employees have rational grounds for recalibrating their contribution levels. Quiet quitting thus represents an effort to restore perceived equity by reducing inputs to match outputs.
The psychological contract breach literature demonstrates that employees recalibrate effort in response to perceived violations of implicit employment terms. When restructuring results in increased workloads without commensurate rewards, eliminated opportunities for advancement, or broken promises regarding job security, employees rationally adjust their contributions. Framing quiet quitting as breach response rather than individual pathology shifts attention from employee correction to organisational responsibility.
The burnout literature adds further support for viewing quiet quitting as rational protection. Excessive demands without adequate resources lead to exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced efficacy. Employees who recognise burnout symptoms may rationally conclude that effort limitation represents necessary self-protection. In this framing, quiet quitting functions as an alternative to sick leave or resignation—a strategy for maintaining employment whilst avoiding health-damaging overwork.
Leadership quality significantly influences the rationality calculation underlying quiet quitting. When leaders fail to recognise contributions, provide inadequate support, or demonstrate limited concern for employee development, employees have rational grounds for limiting their investment in discretionary effort. Research consistently identifies poor leadership as a precipitating factor in quiet quitting, suggesting that leadership improvement may prove more effective than disciplinary approaches.
The particular rationality of quiet quitting following repeated restructures deserves emphasis. Each restructure represents an opportunity for organisations to demonstrate commitment to employees and to honour psychological contracts. When successive restructures instead produce broken promises, increased demands, and reduced rewards, employees accumulate evidence supporting the conclusion that discretionary effort yields inadequate returns. In this context, quiet quitting represents not sudden disengagement but rather the logical endpoint of iterative recalculation.
Discussion
Quiet quitting as strategic withdrawal
The evidence synthesised in this dissertation supports reconceptualisation of quiet quitting as strategic withdrawal rather than simple underperformance or laziness. Strategic withdrawal describes deliberate decisions to limit contribution based on rational assessment of costs and benefits within specific organisational contexts. This framing acknowledges employee agency whilst directing attention to organisational conditions that shape rational calculations.
The strategic quality of quiet quitting becomes particularly apparent when examining behaviour following repeated restructures. Employees in repeatedly restructured organisations have accumulated extensive information about organisational reliability, leadership trustworthiness, and the likely returns to discretionary effort. When this accumulated experience indicates that extra effort fails to yield proportionate benefits—or worse, that visible contribution attracts additional burden without recognition—strategic withdrawal represents a logical response.
Understanding quiet quitting as strategic has important implications for interpretation. Managers who view quiet quitting through a deficiency lens may implement interventions focused on employee motivation or discipline. Such interventions address the wrong problem when quiet quitting actually signals rational response to organisational conditions. Strategic framing instead directs managerial attention toward the conditions that make withdrawal strategically attractive.
The protective function of quiet quitting following restructures warrants particular recognition. Employees who have witnessed colleagues suffering adverse outcomes after demonstrating commitment during previous restructures have rational grounds for limiting their own visibility and investment. Protection of career prospects, personal energy, and psychological wellbeing through strategic withdrawal may enable sustained employment that alternative responses—burnout, conflict, resignation—would preclude.
However, the strategic framing should not obscure potential costs of quiet quitting. Even when withdrawal represents rational response to existing conditions, it may generate consequences that employees have not fully anticipated. Skill stagnation, relationship deterioration, and career plateau may result from sustained effort limitation. Strategic analysis must therefore encompass both immediate protection and long-term implications.
Organisational responsibility and trust repair
The findings assembled in this dissertation assign significant responsibility for quiet quitting to organisational conditions rather than individual employee characteristics. This assignment of responsibility carries implications for how organisations should respond to observed withdrawal behaviours.
Trust emerges as a central concern in understanding quiet quitting following restructures. Repeated restructures that breach psychological contracts, impose burdens inequitably, or fail to deliver promised benefits erode trust incrementally. Each erosion strengthens employee conviction that organisations cannot be trusted with discretionary effort—that extra contribution will be exploited rather than reciprocated. Addressing quiet quitting therefore requires attention to trust repair.
Evidence suggests that transparent, participative change management aligned with fair rewards can reduce quiet quitting by addressing underlying trust deficits. When restructuring processes involve employees in decision-making, communicate honestly about constraints and trade-offs, and distribute burdens and benefits equitably, employees have less rational basis for protective withdrawal. These process qualities signal organisational trustworthiness in ways that invite renewed discretionary contribution.
The importance of consistency between organisational rhetoric and action deserves emphasis. Restructures frequently involve extensive communication campaigns emphasising opportunity, growth, and mutual benefit. When subsequent reality diverges dramatically from this messaging, cynicism deepens and trust further erodes. Organisations seeking to address quiet quitting must align their communication with their actions, even when honest communication involves acknowledging difficulties or uncertainties.
Leadership behaviour represents a crucial determinant of employee responses to restructuring. Leaders who demonstrate genuine concern for employee wellbeing, acknowledge the difficulties of change, and advocate for equitable treatment create conditions supporting trust maintenance. Conversely, leaders perceived as indifferent, dishonest, or self-serving accelerate trust destruction and quiet quitting. Investment in leadership development focused on change management competencies may therefore prove valuable for organisations experiencing recurring restructures.
Reframing performance expectations
The findings of this synthesis suggest that organisations may need to fundamentally reframe performance expectations in contexts marked by repeated restructuring. Traditional performance management approaches often assume baseline commitment that employees will then be motivated to exceed through appropriate incentives. This assumption appears problematic when repeated restructures have damaged the foundation of trust and commitment upon which discretionary effort depends.
Employees emerging from multiple restructures may interpret stretch performance expectations as unsafe or unfair, particularly when previous change promises were not honoured. Re-anchoring at “meets expectations” represents a protective response to accumulated experience rather than a motivational deficit requiring incentive adjustment. Performance management approaches that fail to acknowledge this context risk alienating employees further by appearing to demand contributions that experience has shown will not be fairly reciprocated.
Alternative approaches to performance expectation might acknowledge the legitimacy of meeting-expectations behaviour whilst creating conditions that make exceeding expectations attractive. This requires demonstrating that discretionary effort will be recognised, rewarded, and not exploited as new baseline. Such demonstration cannot be achieved through communication alone but requires consistent behaviour over time that rebuilds trust.
The concept of performance minimum deserves reconsideration in light of these findings. Current framing treats contribution at contractual minimums as problematic—as falling below desirable levels. Alternative framing might recognise contractual minimums as legitimate contribution levels that organisations have themselves defined as acceptable. When organisations then express dissatisfaction with employees who deliver exactly what contracts specify, the implicit expectation of uncompensated extra effort becomes visible.
This reframing does not deny the importance of discretionary effort for organisational success. It instead recognises that such effort represents a gift from employees rather than an entitlement of employers. Creating conditions in which employees choose to give this gift requires attention to the qualities of organisational relationships rather than solely to incentive structures.
Misdiagnosis and its consequences
Evidence presented in this dissertation suggests that treating quiet quitting purely as a disciplinary issue risks fundamental misdiagnosis. When managers interpret quiet quitting as individual underperformance requiring correction, they may implement interventions that worsen rather than resolve the underlying problems.
Disciplinary framing directs attention toward individual employees as problems to be solved. This attention may manifest in performance improvement plans, increased monitoring, or ultimately termination. Such approaches fail to address the organisational conditions that generated quiet quitting and may intensify remaining employees’ convictions that their organisations cannot be trusted with discretionary effort.
Misdiagnosis also impedes organisational learning. When quiet quitting is attributed to individual deficiency, organisations lose opportunity to examine how their practices contributed to withdrawal. The signal function of quiet quitting—indicating broken trust and systemic overload—goes unrecognised, and problematic conditions persist or intensify.
The consequences of misdiagnosis extend to employee relations more broadly. When employees observe colleagues penalised for quiet quitting that resulted from organisational conditions rather than individual choice, cynicism and distrust spread. The message received by observers is that organisations will blame individuals for problems organisations themselves created—a message that further justifies protective withdrawal.
Accurate diagnosis requires managers to examine quiet quitting within its organisational context. Questions about whether withdrawal might represent rational response to organisational conditions should precede assumptions about individual deficiency. This diagnostic reorientation requires both analytical skill and willingness to confront organisational shortcomings.
Limitations and areas requiring further research
Several limitations constrain the conclusions that may be drawn from this synthesis. The recency of quiet quitting as a defined construct means that longitudinal research examining trajectories over time remains limited. Whether quiet quitting represents a stable orientation or a transitional state remains unclear. The conditions under which employees might transition out of quiet quitting—either toward renewed engagement or toward actual resignation—require investigation.
The literature synthesised draws predominantly from Western organisational contexts. Cultural variation in employment expectations, organisational relationships, and individual-collective orientations may significantly influence how quiet quitting manifests and how employees interpret their behaviour. Research examining quiet quitting in diverse cultural contexts would enhance understanding of its universality and variation.
Methodological diversity in the quiet quitting literature presents both opportunity and challenge. Qualitative studies provide rich insight into employee meaning-making but limit generalisability. Quantitative studies using newly developed scales offer measurement precision but may not capture the full complexity of the phenomenon. Mixed-method research integrating both approaches would strengthen the evidence base.
The relationship between quiet quitting and organisational outcomes requires further empirical investigation. Whilst theoretical analysis suggests negative consequences for organisational performance, systematic evidence quantifying these effects remains limited. Understanding the magnitude of quiet quitting’s organisational impact would inform decisions about intervention priority and resource allocation.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined how employees interpret and respond to performance expectations following repeated organisational restructures, with particular focus on the phenomenon of quiet quitting. Through synthesis of peer-reviewed literature spanning organisational psychology, change management, and human resource management, the analysis has addressed five specific objectives.
Regarding the first objective—establishing conceptual understanding of quiet quitting—the synthesis has identified convergent scholarly definitions characterising the phenomenon as deliberate limitation of effort to formal job requirements, accompanied by psychological comfort with minimal contribution. Scale development work has operationalised key dimensions, whilst theoretical analysis has distinguished quiet quitting from related constructs including turnover intention and absenteeism.
The second objective—examining restructuring effects on employee trust and discretionary effort—has been addressed through evidence demonstrating cumulative erosion of trust and commitment following repeated organisational changes. Research across multiple contexts reveals consistent patterns of withdrawn discretionary effort when restructures breach psychological contracts or fail to deliver promised benefits.
The third objective—identifying psychological mechanisms linking change and quiet quitting—has been achieved through analysis of role stress, job demands-resources dynamics, identity processes, and organisational learning culture. These mechanisms explain how organisational change translates into individual withdrawal behaviours and identify factors that moderate this relationship.
The fourth objective—evaluating whether quiet quitting represents rational adaptation—has been addressed through social exchange theory analysis demonstrating that effort limitation frequently represents logical response to perceived unfair exchange. The strategic and protective functions of quiet quitting following restructures provide substantial grounds for viewing this behaviour as rational rather than pathological.
The fifth objective—developing evidence-based recommendations—has been achieved through identification of organisational practices that can reduce quiet quitting by addressing its underlying causes. Transparent, participative change management combined with fair rewards emerges as central to maintaining productive employment relationships during restructuring.
The significance of these findings extends to both theory and practice. Theoretically, this synthesis advances understanding of quiet quitting by locating it within broader frameworks of social exchange, psychological contracts, and organisational change. The reconceptualisation of quiet quitting as strategic withdrawal rather than simple underperformance opens new directions for research examining the rationality of employee behaviour.
Practically, the findings challenge dominant approaches that treat quiet quitting as individual deficiency requiring disciplinary correction. When quiet quitting signals broken trust and systemic overload, disciplinary responses represent misdiagnosis with potentially counterproductive consequences. Organisations seeking to address quiet quitting must examine their own practices—particularly how they manage change and maintain psychological contracts—rather than focusing exclusively on employee correction.
Future research should examine quiet quitting trajectories over time, cultural variation in the phenomenon, and quantified organisational consequences. Longitudinal studies tracking employees through restructuring processes would illuminate how quiet quitting develops, stabilises, and potentially resolves. Comparative research across cultural contexts would clarify universal and culturally specific aspects of the phenomenon. Systematic investigation of performance implications would inform organisational decisions about intervention priority.
In conclusion, this dissertation argues that quiet quitting following repeated restructures is best understood as rational adaptation to perceived unfair organisational conditions rather than individual underperformance. This understanding redirects attention from employee correction toward organisational responsibility for creating conditions in which discretionary effort appears worthwhile. Whether employee behaviour is framed as “quiet quitting” or “rational adaptation” ultimately depends on how fairly performance expectations and organisational changes have been designed, communicated, and rewarded.
References
Anand, A., Doll, J. and Ray, P., 2023. Drowning in silence: a scale development and validation of quiet quitting and quiet firing. *International Journal of Organizational Analysis*. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-01-2023-3600
Bakare, A. and George, S., 2025. Impact of change in organisational structure on employee satisfaction in private universities in North-Central, Nigeria. *Economic Sciences*. https://doi.org/10.69889/ccyrd415
Bakare, A., Ahmed, S., Ugochi, E., Oyabambi, A. and Isah, F., 2025. Organizational change: how does operational change affect employee satisfaction in private universities in North-Central Nigeria? *IAR Journal of Humanities and Social Science*. https://doi.org/10.47310/iarjhss.2025.v06i01.001
Beuren, I., Santos, V. and Theiss, V., 2021. Organizational resilience, job satisfaction and business performance. *International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management*. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-03-2021-0158
Boy, Y. and Sürmeli, M., 2023. Quiet quitting: a significant risk for global healthcare. *Journal of Global Health*, 13. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.13.03014
Edwards, M. and Clinton, M., 2022. Profiling employee psychological responses during restructuring and downsizing in the public sector: “Flourishers”, “Recoverers” and “Ambivalents”. *Personnel Review*. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-12-2020-0879
Hamouche, S., Koritos, C. and Papastathopoulos, A., 2023. Quiet quitting: relationship with other concepts and implications for tourism and hospitality. *International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management*. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-11-2022-1362
Kang, J., Kim, H. and Cho, O., 2023. Quiet quitting among healthcare professionals in hospital environments: a concept analysis and scoping review protocol. *BMJ Open*, 13. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077811
Karrani, M., Bani-Melhem, S. and Mohd-Shamsudin, F., 2023. Employee quiet quitting behaviours: conceptualization, measure development, and validation. *The Service Industries Journal*, 44, pp. 218-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2023.2286604
Kumar, A., 2025. Silent resistance or strategic withdrawal? Rethinking employee engagement in the era of quiet quitting. *Journal of Informatics Education and Research*. https://doi.org/10.52783/jier.v5i2.3034
Lin, C. and Huang, C., 2020. Employee turnover intentions and job performance from a planned change: the effects of an organizational learning culture and job satisfaction. *International Journal of Manpower*. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-08-2018-0281
Liu, T., Wang, H., Liu, Y., Li, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhu, H., Ning, L. and Jiang, D., 2025. Effect of organizational change on employee innovation performance: a dual mediation model. *PLOS ONE*, 20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313056
Mahand, T. and Caldwell, C., 2023. Quiet quitting – causes and opportunities. *Business and Management Research*. https://doi.org/10.5430/bmr.v12n1p9
Patel, P., Guedes, M., Bachrach, D. and Cho, Y., 2025. A multidimensional quiet quitting scale: development and test of a measure of quiet quitting. *PLOS One*, 20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317624
Rousseau, D.M., 1995. *Psychological contracts in organizations: understanding written and unwritten agreements*. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Serenko, A., 2023. The human capital management perspective on quiet quitting: recommendations for employees, managers, and national policymakers. *Journal of Knowledge Management*, 28, pp. 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-10-2022-0792
Wagstaff, C., Gilmore, S. and Thelwell, R., 2016. When the show must go on: investigating repeated organizational change in elite sport. *Journal of Change Management*, 16, pp. 38-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2015.1062793
Wu, A. and Wei, W., 2024. Rationalizing quiet quitting? Deciphering the internal mechanism of front-line hospitality employees’ workplace deviance. *International Journal of Hospitality Management*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103681
