Five New Workplace Buzzwords

Move aside, Quiet Quitting. For months, everyone has been talking about you, but now there are five new contenders to your precariously-balanced throne. I trawled the internet for the hottest workplace buzzwords... and surprise, surprise, they all centered around employment. Honestly, I don't know who coined these phrases (and don't care enough to find out) but the employer and employee, predictably, have very different perspectives about these.

For instance, employers see Quiet Quitting as slacking off and not living up to one's potential. Employees see it as doing whatever they're paid to do, and no more. The same goes for all these buzzwords I'm about to explore.

These buzzwords generally don't describe anything fresh and exciting. People were doing these things long before there were terms for them. Maybe people just like labelling stuff. It's certainly amusing, and makes for quite a fun list to compile.

1. Quiet Firing

This term is a partial inversion of Quiet Quitting. Instead of employees toning down their output to the bare minimum and doing just enough to remain employed, it's the employer who stops giving perks and treating the employee like a valued member of the company. They still pay the employee on time and fulfill the contractual obligations, but the employee is left out of promotional considerations and significant salary raises. In some cases, it's just neglect; but in most, it's done with the intention of hoping that the employee gets fed up enough to leave without having to get fired.

Employer's view
Layoffs require compensation, and they're expensive. Firing for cause requires evidence and due process, and even then this leaves us open to potential litigation. If the employee gets fired, it's a black mark on his or her resume. It's better for all involved if the employee just leaves. Hopefully they can take a hint, or several.

Also, this gives us room to reverse our decision if it turns out the employee was capable of better.

Employee's view
Some of us don't mind getting fired if there's money involved. Quiet Firing is a bitch move for employers who want to avoid uncomfortable confrontation or possible legal repurcussions. Instead of coming out right and saying that they no longer want us around, they disrespect us constantly so that we no longer want to be here. And if our performance drops as a result, this gives them the perfect excuse to fire us outright.

My view
All in all, it's almost universally agreed that Quiet Firing is bad management, not that this stops people from doing it. It's a longer, drawn-out tactic, almost on par with victory via attrition, and it's far less productive than the direct approach. Also, this can lead to a toxic work environment.

Death by a thousand cuts.

Software developers may be familiar with the practice of code reviews, and not merging bad code into an existing code base to minimalize the negative impact. But what if the code was silently excluded and the developer never even knew why his or her code was left out of the merge? Feedback is important. You want people to be comfortable working with you. Whether or not they like you, is a separate matter.

In short, don't play games. Be a professional.

2. Quiet Hiring

At the other end of the spectrum from Quiet Firing, is Quiet Hiring. This is when employers quietly slip employees extra responsibilities or move them into entirely new positions, without a pay raise or promotion to reflect this. Hence, Quiet Hiring - using existing labor resources to get more work done without actually hiring more labor.

Employer's view
This is a tremendously cost-effective way of hiring, and low-risk. We take existing workers who may not be performing well in their current roles, and give them new roles to see if they are able to function better. For high performers, this is a great way of giving them the opportunity to prove themselves with additional responsibilities. Everybody wins.

Employee's view
Everybody wins, except for the ones who aren't being paid more for the additional workload. So in that sense, only the employer wins. This is a really cheap and digusting way of getting more unpaid work out of employees. We'll be assured that this is only a temporary measure and that more help is on the way, but if it's shown that we can handle this workload, we'll just be rewarded with more work.

My view
This can work, but transparency is needed, something that management can be notoriously bad at. If employees aren't paid more for doing extra work (we're talking weeks or months of sustained workload here, not just a one-off weekend) then resentment is going to set in. As an employer, you are going to look like an exploiter, and let's face it, on that evidence it's hard to argue against. Also, the employee needs to agree to the arrangement with the understanding that there are no repercussions for declining the "promotion". Some may jump at the chance, and some may not. Not everyone wants the same thing. Expecting every employee to be grateful for it is supremely delusional. That's not a good look for someone who is expected to steer the direction of the company.

All of your eggs!

Also, consider the fact that lumping additional responsibilities onto one employee, while it may look clever, can backfire. It is the corporate equivalent of putting all your eggs in one basket. If one developer is primarily responsible for QA, DevOps and system security, you are in deep doo-doo if that developer goes down or leaves. From a very pragmatic point of view, you want employees to be as replaceable as possible.

3. Resenteeism

Resenteeism is derived from Presenteeism, which, to put it simply, it showing up for the sake of showing up, even if the employee in question is sick, injured or otherwise in no physical or mental state to be fully productive. It is the rambunctious cousin of Quiet Quitting. Whereas in Quiet Quitting, employees scale back on work to perform only duties they are contractually obliged to, Resenteeism ups the ante by noisily doing it. Those practicing Resenteeism are pissed off with the workplace and while they still show up, they're not at all subtle about having their resentment show in their demeanor, output, or both.

Employer's view
This is selfish, toxic behavior and utterly unprofessional. People who are that dissatisfied with their employment should seek life elsewhere and not be a Debbie Downer to those who are happy to be employed. There are plenty of people who don't like their jobs and still manage to perform like a champ.

Employee's view
Sure, such behavior is not ideal. But this could be a symptom of something deeper. We've all had those days.

My view
When you hire human beings to perform tasks, this is what you get. Find the root of the problem and address it. These things don't happen in a vacuum; seriously, who wakes up and just decides to perform their work tasks like an asshole? Many software developers take ride in their work. Even if their work may not be of sterling quality, they give their best. There's pride at stake. And it would take an extreme scenario for a developer to deliberately turn in bad code out of frustration.

It's always Monday!

Of course, in an ideal situation, if one is that unhappy, they should just leave. But not everyone has that as a viable option. At least the symptom is obvious - and whom to fire is just as obvious. But that's just a band-aid, and simply removing the offending employee does not solve the root problem and may even affect morale. Tread carefully.

4. Career Cushioning

I don't know when this term came to life, but the phenomenon it describes is hardly new.

When an employee wishes to leave, but instead opts to stay while actively looking for a new job, that is what people call Career Cushioning. This could be done in concert with Quiet Quitting or outright Resenteeism.

Employer's view
Employees who do this, are cheating the company which is expending time and resources on training them, only to treat the company as a stepping stone. This is ingratitude at its worst.

Employee's view
Well, it's only pragmatic to do so, isn't it? When companies want to fire someone, do they fire first and worry about replacing later, or do they actively seek a replacement first? It's a little hypocritical to complain when the shoe's on the other foot.

My view
Objective as I often try to be, I'm going to have to side with employees on this one. Honestly, what are employers smoking when they have the audacity to complain about this? It's simple math. Try not to be emotional about it.

Not everyone loves their job. To them, a job is just a job. And that stands even more true if the company you're working for, does not belong to you. So putting up with an unpleasant work situation while actively seeking greener pastures is not only perfectly acceptable, it speaks well of the employee's determination and discipline.

Being used as a stepping stone.

Employers, if you're upset at being used as a stepping stone, get over yourselves. Even large companies like Microsoft and Google get used as stepping stones.

You know what's worse than being a stepping stone? Not being good enough to even qualify as one.

5. Rage Applying

I have saved arguably the best for last. Rage Applying is used to describe a situation where employees apply to other jobs after experiencing dissatisfaction with their employers. Kind of like the term "Rage Quit" (one which we won't discuss here) if you think about it. In a momentary fit of anger, the person in question burns bridges, or prepares to do so. The employee starts applying to other jobs like it's going out of fashion.

This, however, is different from Resenteeism in the sense that these employees, as in Career Cushioning, hang on to their current jobs while seeking life elsewhere.

Employer's view
Such employees are unprofessional and immature. There will always be disagreements and unpleasant situations at work. Why throw that all away by looking for a way out when you could confront and fix the situation, like an adult?

Employee's view
Usually, when this happens, it's not due to a momentary stab of anger. It's the accumulation of many injustices and aggravations that have led up to this moment.

My view
Believe it or not, both sides have a point here. There is no job where you won't occasionally have a bad day. The professional thing to do is try to work it out. The employee is also correct in the sense that it's typically not one bad day that leads to this, and possibly they have already tried to fix the situation to no avail.

Don't erupt. Stay cool.

The point I want to make is: quit if you must, but don't Rage Quit. And certainly don't Rage Apply.

This is not to say that employees should not apply for other jobs; in fact, they should regularly be on the lookout for other career opportunities regardless of how happy they are doing their jobs at the moment. Your employer does not own your career. You do. Therefore, you owe it to yourself to know what's out there for you. Techies who allow themselves to stagnate by staying in the exact same role for far too long, are shooting themselves in the foot. I speak from bitter experience.

In other words, look out for other jobs and apply, yes. But don't do it out of rage. Do it with a cool head and a cold heart. This allows you to make better decisions. It's just business. As I mentioned earlier, no sense getting overly emotional about it.

One last (buzz)word...

Neither employers or employees have all the answers. And sometimes their views can be colored by their perspective. Admittedly, as an employee myself, I feel a certain way about certain things. But there are some things that, from a pragmatic standpoint, are either a good idea or a train wreck waiting to happen. I have tried to present that view. Whether or not I have succeeded in that, your mileage may vary.

Did it just get quiet in here?
T___T