Quiet Quitting as a Symptom: Testing the Role of HRM System Gaps Versus Motivational Decline

1. Introduction

In a recent workplace trend that defies traditional labels, employees are showing up—but not fully engaging. They complete their core duties but avoid going “above and beyond.” This phenomenon, now widely referred to as quiet quitting, has emerged as a nuanced and controversial expression of disengagement in the post-pandemic workplace. Unlike actual turnover, quiet quitting reflects a behavioral withdrawal without physical exit, raising complex questions about its origins, implications, and solutions.

While many popular accounts frame quiet quitting as a generational attitude shift or a conscious reprioritization of work–life boundaries (De Smet et al. 2022), such portrayals often obscure structural causes rooted in HRM system design. Specifically, they neglect the extent to which perceived unfairness, poor managerial practices, and organizational neglect might be driving employee disengagement. The prevailing focus on individual agency risks overlooking a critical point: could quiet quitting be less about employees “not trying” and more about systems “not working”?

The academic conversation surrounding workplace disengagement has long centered on constructs such as burnout (Maslach and Jackson 1981), intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 2000), and work engagement (Schaufeli et al. 2002). In this tradition, disengagement is typically interpreted as a psychological withdrawal caused by factors like emotional exhaustion, low autonomy, or misaligned goals (Bakker and Demerouti 2007; Ryan and Deci 2017). Quiet quitting fits this model but also raises newer, context-driven concerns.

On the systems side, human resource management (HRM) theory suggests that misalignment between employee expectations and organizational practices can erode trust and discretionary effort (Lepak and Snell 2002). Studies on organizational justice have consistently shown that employees who perceive injustice—procedural, distributive, or interpersonal—are more likely to exhibit counterproductive or withdrawal behaviors (Colquitt 2001; Cropanzano et al. 2007). Similarly, the effectiveness of HRM systems—especially when practices are perceived as inconsistent, symbolic, or irrelevant—has a significant impact on employee commitment and motivation (Wright and Nishii 2013).

Surprisingly, however, few studies to date have empirically tested whether quiet quitting stems more from individual-level motivational decline or organizational-level HRM system failure. Existing studies often rely on anecdotal evidence or limited conceptual perspectives, leaving a gap in understanding the relative weight of psychological vs structural predictors of this behavior.

This study addresses that gap by asking a straightforward yet underexplored question:Is quiet quitting better explained by HRM system gaps or by motivational decline? To answer this, we integrate two theoretical pathways into a dual-path model:

• Systemic HRM Gaps, captured through measures of organizational justice (Colquitt 2001) and HRM system effectiveness (based on employee perceptions of relevance and coherence).
• Motivational Decline, operationalized through validated constructs of intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 2000), burnout (Maslach et al. 2001), and job demands (Karasek 1979; Demerouti et al. 2001).

Specifically, we develop and empirically test a conceptual model proposing that quiet quitting is best understood as a symptom of both systemic HRM gaps and individual motivational decline. Guided by this framework, we propose three specific hypotheses: H1—that HRM system gaps positively predict quiet quitting; H2—that intrinsic motivation negatively predicts quiet quitting; and H3—that burnout mediates the relationship between HRM gaps and quiet quitting.

To empirically test this model, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 600 employees across education, healthcare, technology, and other sectors in Lebanon. Using validated instruments, we measured perceptions of HRM system gaps, motivational decline indicators, and quiet quitting tendencies. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was then applied to test the strength and significance of both conceptual pathways.

This study contributes to the evolving literature on disengagement, HRM effectiveness, and post-pandemic work behavior in three key ways:

• It empirically distinguishes between system-level and individual-level causes of quiet quitting.
• It validates a dual-path explanatory model, bridging micro-level psychology with macro-level HRM practices.
• It offers actionable implications for HR professionals seeking to improve employee retention and engagement not through surveillance or pressure, but through systemic reform and motivation-sensitive policies.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews relevant literature and builds the dual-path conceptual model. Section 3 presents the methodology, including sample, measures, and analysis strategy. Section 4 details the results. Section 5 discusses the findings in relation to theory and practice. Finally, Section 6 concludes with limitations and future research directions.

2. Related Work

Understanding quiet quitting as a workplace phenomenon requires drawing on literature about human resource management (HRM) systems, employee engagement, and employee withdrawal. This section reviews how robust HRM systems drive engagement, how burnout can erode motivation, and how quiet quitting has been conceptualized in recent debates. It highlights two potential pathways to quiet quitting: one stemming from gaps or failures in the HRM system, and another from individual motivational decline.

2.1. HRM Systems and Employee Engagement

Extensive research indicates that well-designed HRM practices and systems can foster higher employee engagement and commitment. Employee engagement refers to a state in which individuals are fully absorbed in and enthusiastic about their work, investing extra effort and energy (Kahn 1990). High-involvement or high-performance HRM practices (e.g., training, participation, recognition) signal support and value for employees, which in turn drives them to engage more deeply in their roles. For example, one study found that when employees perceived stronger HR practices in their organization, they reported higher engagement levels and were more likely to display organizational citizenship behaviors (Alfes et al. 2013). Such practices create an environment of trust and reciprocity consistent with social exchange theory—employees reciprocate supportive HRM by going above and beyond their formal duties. Recent conceptual work on “caring” HRM underscores that when employees feel genuinely cared for through fair and family-friendly policies, their engagement is bolstered (Saks 2022). This caring-oriented approach reflects a shift in HRM thinking toward employee well-being as a precursor to commitment and discretionary effort.

A critical aspect of HRM effectiveness is the HRM system strength – i.e., how consistently and clearly HR policies are communicated and implemented across an organization. In a strong HRM system, employees receive unambiguous signals that help align their behaviors with organizational goals (Bowen and Ostroff 2004). By contrast, gaps or inconsistencies in the HRM system – for instance, when promised practices are not actually delivered – can undermine engagement. If an organization claims to reward excellence but fails to do so in practice, employees may become cynical or withdraw their extra effort. Indeed, when employees perceive that the organization has broken its promises or failed to meet its obligations (a psychological contract breach), they often respond by reducing their contributions and commitment (Robinson and Rousseau 1994; Zhao et al. 2007). A meta-analysis by Zhao et al. (2007) confirmed that psychological contract breaches are significantly associated with lower job satisfaction, trust, and organizational citizenship behavior. This aligns with the notion that HRM system gaps – discrepancies between espoused HR policies and employees’ actual experiences – erode the foundation of engagement. Over time, repeated disappointments in HRM practices (e.g., unfair promotions, poor communication, lack of growth opportunities) can prompt employees to pull back effort and involvement as a form of self-protection or silent protest.

On the positive side, effective HRM practices not only prevent disengagement but actively promote engagement. Studies have shown that high-performance work systems that invest in employees’ skills, empowerment, and rewards tend to increase employees’ affective commitment and involvement in their work. Engaged employees willingly undertake extra-role activities and “go the extra mile” beyond their formal job requirements (Kehoe and Wright 2013). In short, a robust HRM system sets the stage for engagement by aligning organizational support with employee expectations. Conversely, a weak or misaligned HRM system – one characterized by low support, inconsistency, or perceived injustice – can trigger disengagement. A recent meta-analytic review provides evidence that strong perceived workplace support is linked to lower incidence of quiet quitting, whereas perceptions of injustice and workplace conflict increase the likelihood of quiet quitting (Geng et al. 2025). This underscores the powerful role of organizational context: employees are less inclined to mentally “check out” when they feel supported and treated fairly, but are more likely to withdraw effort when HRM practices or leadership behaviors send negative signals.

2.2. Burnout and Motivational Decline

While HRM factors shape the work climate, an individual’s level of motivation and well-being is another critical piece of the quiet quitting puzzle. Workplace burnout, in particular, has been widely studied as a driver of reduced motivation and withdrawal behaviors. Burnout is defined as a chronic state of physical and emotional exhaustion coupled with cynicism and a reduced sense of efficacy (Maslach et al. 2001). It often results from prolonged job stressors – high workload, role conflict, lack of control or recognition – and leads to what might be termed a motivational decline. As employees burn out, their intrinsic enthusiasm and energy for the job wane, often precipitating a form of disengagement. Maslach and Leiter (2001) have described burnout and engagement as opposite ends of a continuum: as burnout increases, an employee’s engagement typically plummets. Burned-out employees frequently display symptoms such as depersonalization (distancing themselves from work or clients) and minimal effort investment, which mirror the behaviors observed in quiet quitting.

The process by which burnout translates to reduced effort can be understood through conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll 1989). When employees experience resource depletion (energy, resilience, optimism), they naturally strive to conserve what remains by withdrawing from non-essential tasks. In practice, this may mean doing only what is necessary to get through the workday while avoiding any additional initiatives – essentially the behavioral essence of quiet quitting. Empirical evidence supports this link: for instance, a recent study in the hospitality sector found that employees facing high role conflicts and stressful work demands suffered lower well-being and higher burnout, which in turn led to quiet quitting behaviors (Prentice et al. 2024). In that study, burnout acted as a mediator between work stress (role conflicts) and quiet quitting, indicating that excessive demands drained employees’ motivation and pushed them toward minimal engagement as a coping mechanism. When work conditions continually tax employees without adequate support or reward, motivational decline is a predictable outcome.

Another important concept is the “neglect” response in reaction to job dissatisfaction. Classic models of responses to dissatisfaction (e.g., the Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect framework) propose that some employees respond to adverse conditions by passively allowing their performance to deteriorate (neglect) rather than actively voicing concerns or quitting outright. Burnout can precipitate this neglectful stance – employees simply have no energy or optimism left to invest in improving the situation, so they emotionally check out. The emerging quiet quitting behavior aligns closely with this neglect mode, wherein the employee remains in the organization but mentally withdraws. Indeed, a meta-review of quiet quitting antecedents across industries found that burnout and stress were consistently positively correlated with quiet quitting, while indicators of positive motivation (job satisfaction, organizational commitment) were negatively correlated (Geng et al. 2025). In practical terms, as employees become exhausted and disillusioned, their willingness to expend extra effort or engage proactively diminishes.

It is worth noting that reducing one’s effort can sometimes be a form of self-preservation rather than sheer counter productivity. Some scholars argue that setting stricter boundaries at work – essentially not over-extending oneself – can be a healthy adaptive response to burnout. For example, a study of school teachers after the COVID-19 pandemic found that teachers who curtailed extra-role activities (a behavior akin to quiet quitting) actually experienced lower burnout, as it prevented them from overwork (Tsemach and Barth 2023). In that context, quiet quitting behavior (not taking on additional responsibilities beyond the job description) was interpreted as a “positive” trend that helped reduce burnout among teachers who had been overextending themselves. This perspective suggests that motivational decline is sometimes a consequence of unsustainable effort, and that a conscious reduction in extra work can stabilize one’s well-being. Thus, while burnout generally leads to disengagement as a dysfunctional outcome, a controlled dial-back of effort may serve as a coping mechanism to avoid full-blown burnout.

In summary, existing literature establishes a clear link between declining employee well-being (especially burnout) and withdrawal of work effort. Burnout represents an involuntary depletion of motivation that often manifests in behaviors analogous to quiet quitting: less initiative, minimal involvement, and cynicism toward one’s job (Maslach et al. 2001). When the work environment continually drains employees and offers little recuperation, motivational decline can set in, prompting employees to do only what is necessary to get by. Such withdrawal can be seen as the individual-level path to quiet quitting, distinct from (but often interacting with) the organizational-level influences discussed earlier.

2.3. Quiet Quitting: Debates and Dual Pathways

The term “quiet quitting” gained popular prominence in 2022, referring to employees who deliberately limit their work effort to the bare minimum required, offering no voluntary extra contributions. Although the label is new, scholars have noted that the core behavior is not entirely unprecedented (Atalay and Dağıstan 2024). In essence, quiet quitting reflects a form of on-the-job withdrawal – employees remain in their position but psychologically disengage, adhering strictly to their formal role requirements and not a jot more. Harris (2025) defines quiet quitting as workers “intentionally opting to adhere to contracted duties/hours while avoiding taking on additional responsibilities.” This conscious decision to withhold extra effort is what differentiates quiet quitting from mere poor performance or lassitude. It is often described as a voluntary and active adjustment of work engagement, rather than outright laziness or incompetence (Harris 2025).

A key debate surrounding quiet quitting is whether to view it primarily as a symptom of organizational issues or as an individual coping strategy . One viewpoint, common in early media portrayals, is that quiet quitting is a form of employee malaise or moral hazard – a problematic trend where disengaged employees coast along, harming organizational performance. From this perspective, quiet quitting is unequivocally negative for organizations, as it entails the loss of discretionary effort that can be crucial for innovation, customer service, and overall productivity. For example, in the hospitality industry, commentators have warned that quiet quitting by frontline staff (doing the strict minimum for guests) can undermine service quality and customer satisfaction (Liu-Lastres et al. 2023). Such concerns echo traditional organizational behavior findings that employee discretionary effort is linked to important outcomes, and its absence – a silent withdrawal – can have detrimental effects. Indeed, early analyses have treated quiet quitting as a threat that managers must combat through better engagement strategies, lest overall performance suffer (Liu-Lastres et al. 2023).

However, another viewpoint frames quiet quitting in a more sympathetic light: as a rational response by employees to either unsatisfactory work conditions or to preserve work–life balance. Hamouche et al. (2023) observe that quiet quitting closely resembles classic collective actions like “work-to-rule” or the ethos of “acting your wage,” suggesting it can be understood as a form of protest or boundary-setting. In their critical review, Hamouche et al. (2023) connect quiet quitting to concepts such as employee cynicism and employee silence, indicating that it often arises when employees feel voiceless, unappreciated, or treated unjustly. An employee who perceives repeated unfairness or breach of the psychological contract may “quit quietly” as a way to restore a sense of fairness – effectively recalibrating their inputs to match what they feel the organization has given them. This aligns with equity theory: if an employee feels under-rewarded for their effort, reducing that effort is an attempt to rebalance the equation. Recent empirical work supports this logic: for instance, a meta-analysis found that employees’ perceptions of injustice and unresolved workplace conflicts significantly increased quiet quitting behaviors (Geng et al. 2025). In other words, one pathway to quiet quitting is through HRM system gaps and negative workplace experiences that erode employees’ organizational commitment. When good performers see poor leadership, arbitrary decisions, or lack of growth opportunities, they may not necessarily resign immediately – instead, they disengage internally and contribute only what they must. This can be viewed as a subtler form of exit, minus the physical quitting.

The alternative pathway to quiet quitting is the individual burnout route discussed earlier – a more inadvertent slide into disengagement due to motivational decline. Harris (2025) makes an important distinction: unlike burnout, which is an involuntary state of exhaustion and detachment, quiet quitting (in its pure form) is often a conscious choice to recalibrate one’s work boundaries. Nevertheless, the two phenomena can converge. A burned-out employee might decide to stop going above and beyond as a means to cope, thereby consciously enacting quiet quitting. Thus, the dual-path model is not necessarily either/or; in practice, quiet quitting can result from a combination of external drivers (HRM failings) and internal drivers (burnout or loss of motivation). An integrative study of quiet quitting among Greek employees illustrated this interplay: it identified breaches of the psychological contract and cycles of emotional exhaustion as jointly giving rise to quiet quitting behaviors (Georgiadou et al. 2025). In that context, unmet expectations (an HRM issue) initiated disengagement, and emotional exhaustion (an individual issue) perpetuated it, creating a cycle of withdrawal.

The quiet quitting debate also touches on outcomes for employees themselves. While organizations clearly lose out on discretionary effort, employees engaging in quiet quitting may experience short-term relief or preservation of well-being. By intentionally limiting their workload to what is contractually required, employees protect their personal time and energy, potentially staving off further burnout. Tsemach and Barth’s (2023) findings exemplify this: teachers under intense pressure who pulled back on extra duties reported lower burnout, implying that a degree of quiet quitting functioned as a burnout prevention mechanism . On the other hand, there could be longer-term career costs for quiet quitters, such as stalled development or fewer advancement opportunities, since they are no longer signalling initiative or “going the extra mile.” The literature has yet to conclusively document these individual consequences, but it is a logical extrapolation of organizational behavior theories that reduced effort and involvement might negatively affect performance evaluations or promotion prospects.

In summary, emerging research portrays quiet quitting as a multifaceted construct with dual pathways. One path begins with the organization: inconsistent HRM systems, poor leadership, and unfair practices breed cynicism and disengagement, leading employees to withdraw effort as a form of silent protest or adjustment. The other path begins with the individual: prolonged stress and burnout deplete an employee’s capacity and willingness to engage, leading to a voluntary scaling back of effort to preserve remaining resources. Both paths result in a similar outcome – employees fulfilling their basic job duties but abstaining from any voluntary extra-role performance. Scholars increasingly view quiet quitting not as a monolithic behavior but as a spectrum of disengagement with varied antecedents and even varied outcomes (Harris 2025). Rather than a purely “bad employee” phenomenon, quiet quitting is better understood as a symptom of deeper issues: it may indicate unaddressed organizational problems (like HRM system failures or contract breaches) and/or signal an individual’s coping response to excessive strain or diminished motivation.

Recognizing these dual origins is crucial for both researchers and practitioners. For researchers, it suggests that models of quiet quitting should integrate both organizational-level factors (e.g., HRM practices, culture, justice perceptions) and individual-level factors (e.g., burnout, work values) to fully explain why employees choose this form of withdrawal. Recent work is indeed moving in this direction – for example, meta-analytic evidence shows both lack of support (organizational factor) and high stress (individual factor) independently contributing to quiet quitting (Geng et al. 2025). For practitioners, the dual-path perspective implies that interventions must be two-pronged: HRM reforms to fix system gaps and re-engage employees, and well-being initiatives to address burnout and rekindle employees’ intrinsic motivation. If quiet quitting is a symptom, then improving the HRM environment (clear communication, fairness, recognition) and supporting employees’ mental health and growth are the remedies to consider, rather than simply chastising employees for not “going above and beyond.”

In conclusion, the related literature points to quiet quitting as an emergent construct rooted in longstanding concepts of engagement, withdrawal, and burnout. HRM system strength and fairness set the tone for whether employees are inclined to engage or quietly disengage. At the same time, individual motivational states heavily influence their propensity to contribute beyond the basics. Quiet quitting sits at the intersection of these domains – it is where suboptimal organizational context meets depleted personal motivation. Future research is encouraged to build on this dual-path model, exploring how HRM interventions and burnout prevention efforts might jointly reduce the incidence of quiet quitting. The debate over quiet quitting, far from just a trendy topic, opens up important conversations about sustainable work engagement and the evolving employee–employer social contract in the post-pandemic era.

2.4. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses.

Drawing upon the theoretical premises established in the related literature, the conceptual framework underpinning this study integrates both organizational and individual-level antecedents to explain the phenomenon of quiet quitting. As illustrated in Figure 1 below, the model hypothesizes that quiet quitting behavior—defined as a reduction in discretionary effort and psychological engagement at work—is driven by two primary pathways: systemic deficiencies within the HRM environment and motivational decline at the employee level.

On the organizational side, HRM system gaps are theorized to have a direct, positive influence on quiet quitting. These gaps encapsulate employees’ perceptions of unfair treatment, lack of recognition, insufficient voice, or weak organizational support structures. When such perceptions accumulate, they are likely to foster a sense of disengagement, prompting employees to retreat from proactive work behaviors.

At the individual level, intrinsic motivation is proposed as a counterforce to quiet quitting. Employees with higher intrinsic motivation—those who derive internal satisfaction from their tasks—are expected to be less susceptible to disengagement, even in the face of structural limitations. Hence, a negative relationship is anticipated between intrinsic motivation and quiet quitting.

Burnout serves a dual role within the model. Conceptualized as an intermediary psychological state marked by emotional exhaustion and reduced personal efficacy, burnout is positioned as a mediating variable. It is hypothesized that HRM system gaps exert an indirect effect on quiet quitting by fostering conditions that lead to burnout, which in turn prompts employees to withdraw. This mediated pathway enriches the model’s explanatory power by linking structural organizational failures to psychological outcomes that directly precipitate disengagement.

From this framework emerge the study’s central hypotheses. H1 posits a positive direct association between HRM system gaps and quiet quitting. H2 proposes a negative direct association between intrinsic motivation and quiet quitting. H3 postulates that burnout mediates the relationship between HRM system gaps and quiet quitting. Together, these hypotheses operationalize the dual-path explanation tested in this study, offering a holistic understanding of quiet quitting as a function of both systemic HRM issues and individual psychological states.

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Sample and Procedure

We tested our hypotheses using a cross-sectional survey of employees from various industries. A total of 600 working professionals participated. The sample was drawn primarily from Lebanon. The respondents averaged 37.1 years of age (SD = 10.2) and had about 13.5 years of work experience. Women represented 59% of the sample. Most participants were employed full-time (72%), with others on part-time, or fixed-term contracts. To reach a broad range of respondents, we distributed an online questionnaire via professional networks and social media. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Before proceeding, respondents provided informed consent and confirmed they were currently employed adults. We implemented procedural safeguards to reduce common method bias, such as assuring anonymity and psychologically separating predictor and criterion sections of the survey (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Data collection occurred over a Six-week period. After removing incomplete entries, we retained all 600 valid responses for analysis. Given the self-report, single-timepoint design, we conducted a Harman single-factor test; no single factor accounted for the majority of variance, suggesting that common method variance was not a severe concern (Podsakoff et al. 2003).

3.2. Measures

All constructs were measured with established or theory-driven scales. Table 1 summarizes each construct, the scale items, and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) for our sample. Unless noted otherwise, respondents rated all items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Quiet Quitting. We conceptualized quiet quitting as the voluntary reduction of work effort to the minimum required, reflecting a withdrawal of discretionary effort. Because no widely validated measure existed at the time of our study (cf. Galanis et al. 2023), we developed five items to capture this behavior, informed by definitions in the emerging literature (Mahand and Caldwell 2023; Agarwal et al. 2024). These items assessed the extent to which individuals limit their work involvement to only what is formally expected (e.g., “I do only what is required and nothing more at work”). Higher scores indicate greater quiet quitting behavior (i.e., lower extra-role effort). As shown in Table 1 , the quiet quitting scale exhibited good reliability in our sample (α = 0.84).

Intrinsic Work Motivation. To gauge employees’ internal motivation for their job, we used six items assessing intrinsic work motivation. These items were adapted from prior research on intrinsic motivation at work (Deci and Ryan 2000; Grant 2008) and tapped the enjoyment, interest, and meaningfulness derived from the job (e.g., “I enjoy the work I do”). A high score reflects a strong inherent interest in and personal reward from one’s work. Cronbach’s α for this scale was 0.92, indicating excellent reliability.

Emotional Exhaustion. We measured burnout symptoms in the form of emotional exhaustion using five items from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach and Jackson 1981). These items capture feelings of being emotionally overextended and depleted by one’s work (e.g., “I feel emotionally drained from my work”). Participants indicating agreement on these items signified higher burnout or fatigue. The emotional exhaustion scale was reliable in this study (α = 0.89).

Workload. Perceived workload and job demands were measured with four items adapted from the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek 1979). The items assess quantitative workload and time pressure (e.g., “I have to work very fast” and “I experience time pressure at work”). Higher scores represent greater work demands. The workload index showed acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.80).

Organizational Justice. We included measures of perceived organizational justice to capture potential gaps in fair treatment as an aspect of the HRM system. Following Colquitt’s (2001) justice dimensions, we assessed four facets: distributive justice (fairness of outcomes, 2 items, α = 0.76), procedural justice (fairness of processes, 2 items, α = 0.65), interpersonal justice (respectful treatment by supervisors, 2 items, α = 0.91), and informational justice (adequacy of explanations and transparency, 2 items, α = 0.85). Example items include “My work rewards reflect the effort I put in” (distributive) and “Communications from my manager are honest and transparent” (informational). Although each justice subscale had only two items (yielding relatively lower α for procedural justice), together these measures provide a broad indication of the fairness climate. We used these justice indicators as part of the assessment of HRM system functioning, with higher scores denoting higher perceived fairness.

HRM System Gap. To directly examine employees’ perceptions of gaps in the human resource management system, we developed three items focusing on the responsiveness and consistency of HR practices. This HRM system gap scale was informed by the concept of HR system strength (Bowen and Ostroff 2004) and the idea that misalignment between formal HR policies and actual practice can undermine employee commitment. The items ask whether the HR department is responsive to employee needs and supports growth, and explicitly whether “there is a gap between the HR policies and how they are actually implemented.” The first two items were reverse-coded so that higher scores consistently indicate a weaker HRM system (i.e., greater HRM implementation gap or shortfall). Employees who perceive poor HR responsiveness and a policy–practice gap score higher on this scale. In our data, the three-item HRM gap measure achieved α = 0.82, suggesting good reliability.

3.3. Analytical Strategy

We employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to test whether quiet quitting is better explained by HRM system factors or by individual motivational decline. As a preliminary step, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the distinctness and construct validity of our key measures. The integrated dual-path model achieved a good fit to the data (χ²/df = 2.48, CFI = 0.943, RMSEA = 0.059), indicating that the SEM results are within acceptable thresholds for model fit, supporting the scales’ discriminant validity. We then computed descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations to explore preliminary associations among variables.

To formally test our hypotheses, we employed hierarchical multiple regression analyses. Quiet quitting served as the dependent variable. Specifically, regression analyses were utilized to evaluate H1, testing whether HRM system gaps positively predict quiet quitting, and H2, examining the negative predictive relationship of intrinsic motivation on quiet quitting. SEM was specifically used to test H3, examining burnout as a mediator between HRM system gaps and quiet quitting, and to evaluate the overall dual-path conceptual model. In Step 1 of the regression, we entered control variables (respondent age, gender, and work experience) to account for any baseline effects. In Step 2, we entered the HRM-related predictors – specifically, the HRM system gap scale and the four justice dimensions – to assess the variance in quiet quitting explained by perceived HRM system shortcomings. In Step 3, we entered the individual motivation-related predictors – intrinsic motivation and emotional exhaustion – to examine the added explanatory power of employees’ motivational states. This ordering allowed us to compare the contributions of HRM system gaps versus motivational decline in predicting quiet quitting. We inspected the change in explained variance (ΔR²) from Step 2 to Step 3, as well as the significance and standardized coefficients of all predictors in the final model. Multicollinearity checks indicated no serious issues (all VIFs < 2.0). Finally, we probed the relative importance of the two sets of factors: a significant increase in R² with the motivational variables, coupled with strong effects for intrinsic motivation or exhaustion, would suggest that quiet quitting is more symptomatic of motivational decline. Conversely, if HRM system gap indicators remain the stronger predictors, it would imply quiet quitting is better explained as a response to organizational HRM deficiencies. All significance tests were two-tailed with a 0.05 alpha level. We used SPSS 28 and AMOS 24 software for the statistical analyses. The results of these analyses are reported in the next section.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Counter to expectations, not all presumed antecedents showed strong relationships with quiet quitting. Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for all constructs. Notably, respondents on average reported low perceived fairness in rewards and procedures (M = 2.47, SD = 0.98) despite relatively high supervisor respect (M = 4.06, SD = 0.84), indicating that while interpersonal treatment by supervisors was generally positive, there were broader system-level fairness concerns. Likewise, the mean perceived gap between HR policies and practice was above the scale midpoint (M = 3.51, SD = 1.00), hinting at inconsistencies in HRM system implementation. All multi-item scales demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.80), with especially high reliability for Quiet Quitting (α = 0.91) and Intrinsic Motivation (α = 0.92), as shown in Table 2 . These metrics suggest the constructs were measured with acceptable reliability. In contrast, quiet quitting was significantly associated with several attitudinal and perception variables in the expected directions, whereas workload was virtually uncorrelated with quiet quitting behavior (r = –0.03, n.s.; Table 3 ), suggesting that heavy job demands alone do not translate into withdrawal.

Bivariate correlations among key variables are presented in . Quiet quitting was strongly negatively correlated with intrinsic motivation (r = –0.50***), indicating that employees who reported lower personal motivation and enjoyment in their work were far more likely to engage in quiet quitting behaviors. Quiet quitting was also positively correlated with burnout (r = 0.43***), consistent with the view that emotional exhaustion and frustration relate to higher withdrawal. In line with the HRM perspective, quiet quitting showed moderate negative correlations with perceived voice (r = –0.31***), supervisor respect (r = –0.27***), managerial communication transparency (r = –0.29***), and HR support (r = –0.26***), all p < 0.001. Thus, employees who felt they lacked a voice in decision processes, received poorer treatment or communication from management, or had less supportive HR practices tended to only meet minimum job requirements. Quiet quitting was positively correlated with the perceived HR policy-practice gap as well (r = 0.20***), suggesting that greater inconsistency between stated HR policies and actual practice coincided with higher withdrawal behavior. On the other hand, as noted above, workload (job demands) had no significant correlation with quiet quitting (r = –0.03, n.s.), an intriguing null finding indicating that objective work pressure by itself was not associated with doing the bare minimum. It is worth noting that many of the HRM system variables were inter-correlated: for example, fairness was strongly positively correlated with HR support (r = 0.60***) and negatively with the HR policy-practice gap (r = –0.51***), reflecting an overall pattern of interrelated positive work climate perceptions. Such multicollinearity necessitated a multivariate approach to determine their unique contributions, as described next.

4.2. Structural Equation Modeling Results

We next tested three nested structural models to compare the explanatory power of motivation-based predictors versus HRM system predictors of quiet quitting. All models were specified with Quiet Quitting as the criterion (dependent variable). Model 1 included only the two motivation-related constructs – intrinsic motivation and burnout – as predictors. Model 2 included only the HRM system-related constructs (perceived fairness, voice, supervisor respect, manager communication, HR support, and HR policy-practice gap) as simultaneous predictors. Model 3 was the integrated model combining both sets of predictors. summarizes the standardized path coefficients (β) and explained variance (R²) for each model, and Figure 2 depicts the final path diagram.

Model 1 (Motivation-Only): This model provided a substantial explanation of quiet quitting behavior, with R² = 0.28, meaning about 28% of the variance in quiet quitting was accounted for by employees’ motivation levels. Both predictors in Model 1 were statistically significant. Intrinsic motivation had a strong negative effect on quiet quitting (β = –0.38, p < .001), indicating that employees who found their work meaningful and energizing were much less likely to limit their efforts to the bare minimum. Conversely, burnout showed a significant positive effect (β = +0.20, p < .001), consistent with the expectation that exhausted or emotionally drained employees are more prone to withdraw effort. These results support the “motivational decline” explanation: lower work motivation and higher burnout are associated with increased quiet quitting.

Model 2 (HRM System-Only): In contrast, the model containing only HRM system factors explained a more modest portion of variance (R² = 0.14). Moreover, most HR-related predictors did not individually contribute significantly when considered together. The sole exception was employee voice, which emerged as a significant negative predictor (β = –0.19, p < .001) of quiet quitting. This indicates that employees who feel they have a say in decision-making are less likely to disengage and restrict their contributions. However, perceived fairness (β = +0.08, n.s.), supervisor respect (β = –0.09, n.s.), manager communication (β = –0.09, n.s.), HR support (β = –0.09, n.s.), and the HR policy-practice gap (β = +0.08, n.s.) all showed no significant unique effects in this model – their small observed coefficients did not reach significance (). It appears that these facets of the HRM system, while correlated with quiet quitting in isolation (), overlap in influence and thus none (aside from voice) stood out as a clear independent predictor when tested simultaneously. This finding was somewhat surprising, as it suggests that formal justice and HR support factors were weaker determinants of quiet quitting than expected when controlling for each other.

Model 3 (Integrated Model): Incorporating both sets of predictors, the integrated Model 3 accounted for approximately 30% of the variance in quiet quitting (R² = 0.30), representing an improvement over Model 2 (ΔR² = +0.16) and a slight increase over Model 1 (ΔR² = +0.02). Consistent with the bivariate results, intrinsic motivation remained a strong negative predictor of quiet quitting in the combined model (β = –0.34, p < .001), and burnout remained a significant positive predictor (β = +0.19, p < .001). Thus, even after accounting for HRM-related perceptions, employees’ motivational states continued to play a dominant role in explaining quiet quitting. Among the HRM factors, employee voice continued to show a significant unique effect (β = –0.12, p < .01) in Model 3, reinforcing the importance of participative decision-making climate in mitigating withdrawal behavior. In contrast, most other HRM system variables did not exhibit significant direct effects on quiet quitting when motivational factors were simultaneously considered. Notably, the HR policy-practice gap – the focal “HRM system gap” variable – had a non-significant path in the integrated model (β = +0.05, p = .27), indicating that once employees’ motivation and burnout levels (and other perceptions) were taken into account, the direct association between perceived HR inconsistency and quiet quitting was negligible.

One unexpected result in Model 3 was that the perceived fairness path coefficient, which was negative in simple correlations, became significantly positive (β = +0.14, p < .01) when controlling for the other predictors. In other words, when holding motivation and other factors constant, higher fairness perceptions were associated with slightly more quiet quitting. This suppression effect is likely statistical in nature, arising because fairness was moderately correlated with intrinsic motivation and (inversely with) burnout (). When those motivational variables are controlled, the residual impact of fairness on quiet quitting appears in the opposite direction, though its magnitude is relatively small. Importantly, supervisor respect, manager communication, and HR support paths all remained non-significant in the combined model (βs between –0.01 and –0.04, n.s.), suggesting that, after accounting for employee voice and motivation/burnout, these aspects of the work environment did not uniquely predict whether employees engaged in quiet quitting. In sum, the integrated model results indicate that quiet quitting is more directly driven by employees’ dwindling motivation (low engagement and high burnout) than by perceived gaps in the HRM system, although a lack of voice in the organization does independently contribute to higher quiet quitting tendencies.

Table 4. Standardized path coefficients (β) and explained variance for structural models predicting Quiet Quitting (N = 600). Model 1 includes motivation-based predictors only; Model 2 includes +HRM system-based predictors only; Model 3 is the fully integrated model.

Predictor	Model 1 β	Model 2 β	Model 3 β
Intrinsic Motivation	–0.38***	—	–0.34***
Burnout	+0.20***	—	+0.19***
Fairness	—	+0.08	+0.14**
Voice	—	–0.19***	–0.12**
Supervisor Respect	—	–0.09	–0.01
Manager Communication	—	–0.09	–0.04
HR Support	—	–0.09	–0.04
HR Policy-Practice Gap	—	+0.08	+0.05
R² (Quiet Quitting)	0.28	0.14	0.30

p < .05, *p < .01, **p < .001 (two-tailed). Coefficients are standardized estimates. “—“denotes that a predictor was not included in a given model.

Table 4. Standardized path coefficients (β) and explained variance for structural models predicting Quiet Quitting (N = 600). Model 1 includes motivation-based predictors only; Model 2 includes +HRM system-based predictors only; Model 3 is the fully integrated model.

Predictor	Model 1 β	Model 2 β	Model 3 β
Intrinsic Motivation	–0.38***	—	–0.34***
Burnout	+0.20***	—	+0.19***
Fairness	—	+0.08	+0.14**
Voice	—	–0.19***	–0.12**
Supervisor Respect	—	–0.09	–0.01
Manager Communication	—	–0.09	–0.04
HR Support	—	–0.09	–0.04
HR Policy-Practice Gap	—	+0.08	+0.05
R² (Quiet Quitting)	0.28	0.14	0.30

p < .05, *p < .01, **p < .001 (two-tailed). Coefficients are standardized estimates. “—“denotes that a predictor was not included in a given model.

5. Discussion

This study set out to test whether the emerging phenomenon of quiet quitting is better explained by a decline in individual motivation or by gaps in the organizational HRM system. In other words, the central question was: Is quiet quitting primarily a result of employees losing motivation (e.g., burnout/disengagement), or does it stem from shortcomings in how the organization manages and rewards its people? Our findings indicate that quiet quitting is more strongly driven by motivational decline at the individual level than by HRM system gaps. The model focusing on personal factors (e.g., reduced engagement, burnout) provided a better fit and higher explanatory power for quiet quitting behavior, whereas the HRM-related factors, while contributory, were comparatively weaker. In practical terms, Hypothesis 1 (H1), which posited that quiet quitting would be driven by deficiencies in the HRM system (such as lack of support or rewards), received only partial support, Hypothesis 2 (H2) which posited that quiet quitting would be associated with declining employee motivation and engagement, was supported. Thus, in answer to our central question, the evidence suggests that quiet quitting aligns more with an employee’s waning motivation (and related psychological states) than with any single failure of HR policies, though the two are not entirely independent. Notably, the individual-pathway model outperformed the organizational-pathway model, underscoring that the roots of quiet quitting often lie within the employee’s own experience and mindset.

These findings offer important insights into the nature of quiet quitting and how it connects to existing theories. Quiet quitting can be understood as a form of employee withdrawal that is distinct from outright quitting; rather than resigning, employees withdraw effort. The fact that the individual motivation pathway dominated in our results is consistent with viewing quiet quitting as a coping mechanism for employees facing resource depletion. Recent work by Agarwal et al. (2024) describes quiet quitting as a “strategy for minimizing resource depletion,” wherein an employee “deliberately curtails their effort or makes no additional investment in their job”. In line with this, our participants who exhibited signs of burnout or cynicism were more likely to engage in quiet quitting, suggesting they pull back effort to protect their well-being. This supports the idea that quiet quitting is often a conscious boundary-setting behavior: employees do the bare minimum as a way to avoid further stress and exhaustion (Serenko 2024). This behavior reflects a ‘working to rule’ strategy and exemplifies ‘calibrated contributing’—a psychological contract response where employees rationally limit effort to avoid the personal costs of exceeding expectations amid uncertain. Our results reinforce this interpretation: quiet quitters in our sample were essentially disengaged employees preserving their energy, rather than malingerers. In fact, quiet quitting may help some workers avoid burnout in the short term, even if it means foregoing extra-role performance (Agarwal et al. 2024) This nuance is important because it challenges simplistic narratives that quiet quitters are merely “lazy” or lack work ethic; instead, many appear to be exhausted or disillusioned employees whose motivation has faltered.

On the other hand, we also considered the role of the organizational environment – the HRM system factors – in fostering quiet quitting. Prior commentary has speculated that quiet quitting is symptomatic of poor management practices or unmet expectations at work. For example, a human capital management analysis by Serenko (2023) found that employees often quiet quit due to “poor extrinsic motivation, burnout and grudges against their managers or organizations.” In our study, factors such as perceived unfairness, lack of growth opportunities, or weak supervisor support (analogous to HRM system gaps) did show an effect on quiet quitting intentions, but indirectly. The weaker influence of these factors in our model suggests that organizational shortcomings tend to trigger quiet quitting mainly when they undermine an employee’s personal motivation, hence, Hypothesis 3 (H3) which posited that burnout mediates the relationship between HRM gaps and quiet quitting is also supported. In other words, an inadequate HRM practice (for instance, not recognizing extra effort or a toxic boss) by itself may not immediately lead to quiet quitting unless it translates into the employee feeling demotivated, unvalued, or burned out. This interpretation bridges the two perspectives: the individual and organizational drivers of quiet quitting are interlinked. Our evidence indicates that quiet quitting is not simply a top-down failure of HRM nor purely a worker’s personal choice in a vacuum, but rather a phenomenon arising when external workplace issues erode internal motivation. This finding contributes to the theoretical conversation by highlighting the mediating role of employee motivation in the quiet quitting equation. It extends earlier research by empirically demonstrating that the quiet quitting trend, popularized in media as a reaction against hustle culture, in fact sits at the crossroads of motivation theory and HRM practice. We show that quiet quitting is deeply intertwined with concepts of work engagement, burnout, and psychological contracts. By doing so, our work refines the current understanding: quiet quitting represents a form of employee disengagement that is rooted in psychological self-preservation (consistent with conservation of resources theory) even as it may be triggered by organizational factors. This new evidence adds nuance to discussions of post-pandemic workforce behavior, suggesting that interventions to reduce quiet quitting must address how employees feel about their work, not just the policies on paper.

From a broader perspective, our study underlines why quiet quitting deserves attention in both research and practice. Employee disengagement is not a new problem, but quiet quitting has emerged as a stark reminder that a significant portion of the workforce may be emotionally checking out. Recent Gallup data alarmingly showed that at least 50% of the U.S. workforce could be categorized as “quiet quitters,” with employee engagement in 2022 dropping to its lowest level in a decade (Gallup, 2022). Such statistics highlight a widespread issue with potentially serious implications for productivity, innovation, and workplace morale across industries. By investigating quiet quitting through the dual lenses of individual motivation and HRM systems, our study contributes to the bigger picture of understanding workforce engagement in the modern era. It also resonates with the generational and societal shifts observed in the wake of COVID-19 – for instance, younger employees (Gen Z) are placing greater value on work-life balance and are quicker to disengage when work conditions feel unsustainable (Aggarwal et al. 2020). Therefore, our findings connect to a larger narrative: the pandemic and subsequent “Great Resignation” have catalyzed employees to re-evaluate their relationship with work. Quiet quitting can be seen as part of this Great Renegotiation of the employee-employer relationship, where workers assert new boundaries and priorities. Our research extends current knowledge by providing empirical evidence that personal well-being factors (like burnout) carry more weight in this renegotiation than previously confirmed. In doing so, we offer a new framework for thinking about quiet quitting – not as an aberration or solely a consequence of poor management, but as a signal of deeper misalignment between employees’ psychological needs and their work environment.

Implications for practice and policy: This study offers actionable guidance for organizations and policymakers seeking to address quiet quitting. If the phenomenon stems from motivational decline, the remedy lies in restoring employee engagement and well-being. Rather than treating quiet quitting as defiance, it should be seen as a signal—symptomatic of burnout, disengagement, or feeling undervalued.

We propose a multi-pronged strategy:

• Prioritize well-being and prevent burnout: Wellness initiatives and manageable workloads help sustain energy and reduce withdrawal behaviors (Serenko 2024).
• Reward extra effort fairly: Recognizing above-and-beyond contributions—via bonuses, praise, or advancement—reduces the incentive to disengage. Unrewarded effort leads employees to do only what’s required (Serenko 2024).
• Foster meaningful work and growth: Purposeful roles and development opportunities enhance motivation and reduce quiet quitting tendencies (Agarwal et al. 2024).
• Strengthen manager–employee relationships: Fair treatment and respectful communication build trust and voluntary effort. Interactional justice and safe feedback channels are key.
• Normalize work-life balance: Encouraging boundaries and rest can boost engagement. Rather than viewing quiet quitters as disloyal, organizations should promote sustainable productivity.

These interventions target both individual and systemic drivers of disengagement. Ultimately, the goal is to cultivate “quiet thriving”—where employees contribute willingly, not out of obligation but genuine motivation. Managers should avoid punitive responses and instead treat quiet quitting as diagnostic feedback. Addressing root causes can elevate morale and performance.

Limitations and future research: While this study advances understanding of quiet quitting, several limitations warrant further exploration. First, the cross-sectional design restricts causal inference; longitudinal research could reveal how motivational decline or HRM improvements shape quiet quitting over time. Second, the construct itself remains emergent and variably defined—from minimal citizenship behavior to strict adherence to job roles. Future studies should refine its measurement, potentially using the Quiet Quitting Scale for consistency.

Our comparison of individual versus organizational factors did not fully explore their interaction. For instance, supportive HRM practices may buffer the effects of motivational decline (e.g., a caring manager might prevent disengagement). Investigating such moderating or mediating pathways—like psychological meaningfulness or availability—could deepen insight.

Demographic and cultural variations also merit attention. Younger versus older workers may quiet quit for different reasons, and manifestations may differ across industries or cultures. Early evidence suggests distinct patterns in collectivist societies and under varying economic conditions.

Finally, the long-term consequences of quiet quitting remain unclear. While it may offer short-term relief, sustained disengagement could erode innovation and citizenship behavior. Future research should assess interventions to re-engage quiet quitters and evaluate their effectiveness.

In conclusion, our findings suggest quiet quitting stems more from motivational erosion than HRM system flaws. This framing urges organizations to address both psychological states and management practices. By tackling root causes, leaders can foster a more engaged, resilient workforce and transform quiet quitting from a crisis into a catalyst for meaningful change.

6. Conclusions

This study set out to determine whether quiet quitting is best understood as a symptom of gaps in an organization’s HRM system or as a consequence of individual motivational decline. We revisited the research question by examining if shortcomings in HRM practices and support, versus waning employee motivation, better explain why employees disengage and restrict their effort. The results from testing Hypotheses 1 through 3 provide a clear answer. Consistent with expectations, we found that perceived HRM system gaps have some association with quiet quitting, and motivational decline (e.g., reduced enthusiasm and burnout) also shows a significant positive link with quiet quitting. In our model, both factors contributed to explaining the variance in quiet quitting behavior. The significant effects observed for H1 and H2 indicate that employees are more likely to “work to rule” and withhold extra effort when they perceive deficiencies in the organizational environment or when their personal drive and energy have deteriorated. Meanwhile, support for H3 confirmed that the interplay between HRM gaps and burnout is crucial: the influence of HRM system gaps on quiet quitting was largely channeled through declines in motivation. In other words, poor HRM practices erode employees’ motivation, which in turn prompts the withdrawal behavior captured by quiet quitting. Taken together, these findings suggest that our integrated model successfully addressed the research problem by showing that quiet quitting can be explained as a joint outcome of organizational shortcomings and diminishing employee motivation.

Our findings align well with theoretical expectations and recent research. The evidence that HRM system gaps (such as lack of support, unfair treatment, or unfulfilled expectations) drive quiet quitting is in line with studies emphasizing how managerial and organizational failures lead employees to scale back their engagement (Mahand and Caldwell 2023). This supports the view of quiet quitting as an employee response to unsatisfactory work conditions, akin to a reaction to psychological contract breaches or perceived injustice. Likewise, the strong relationship observed between motivational decline and quiet quitting is consistent with prior findings that burnout, stress, and lost enthusiasm prompt employees to withdraw discretionary effort (Geng et al. 2025). In fact, our results reinforce the notion that quiet quitting represents a form of self-protection or resource conservation when employees feel overextended or underappreciated (Hamouche et al. 2023). In sum, the pattern of results met our expectations: employees disengage quietly not simply out of laziness or generational attitude, but as an understandable consequence of unmet needs in their work environment and a deterioration of their inner drive. These outcomes confirm the central premise of our research question and affirm that the proposed model has effectively captured the underlying drivers of quiet quitting.

Despite mentioned limitations, our study offers valuable contributions to HRM theory and practice. Theoretically, it advances the understanding of quiet quitting by framing it as more than an isolated employee choice – instead, as a phenomenon deeply rooted in the employee–organization relationship. By empirically demonstrating that weak HRM systems (for example, inconsistent support or recognition) can erode employee motivation and lead to minimal engagement, we extend existing HRM and organizational behavior literature on employee withdrawal. The results integrate perspectives from motivational theory and HRM systems theory, showing that both extrinsic workplace factors and intrinsic motivational states jointly determine discretionary work behavior. This integration contributes a more holistic explanation of quiet quitting, bridging micro (individual motivation) and macro (organizational system) levels of analysis. From a practical standpoint, our findings send a clear message to HR professionals and managers: preventing quiet quitting requires closing the gaps in HRM systems as much as rekindling employees’ motivation. Organizations should invest in fair and supportive management practices – ensuring that employees feel heard, valued, and fairly rewarded – as these measures can foster the workplace support that discourages disengagement. At the same time, employers need to monitor and maintain employee well-being, addressing signs of burnout or cynicism before they translate into withdrawal. In line with emerging guidance in the HR field, our evidence suggests that re-engaging quiet quitters is not about chastising individual employees, but about fixing organizational inconsistencies and reenergizing the workforce (Serenko 2024). By highlighting the dual importance of organizational context and personal motivation, this study contributes a nuanced perspective that can help HRM practitioners design more effective interventions. Ultimately, recognizing quiet quitting as a symptom – and not merely a cause – of deeper issues enables both scholars and practitioners to focus on the root causes of disengagement, thereby improving employee experience and organizational performance in the long run.