QUIET QUITTING

Steven Cesare, Ph.D.

A business owner from Colorado called me the other day to discuss some recent compensation issues she has had with her staff. In particular, she and her Lead Irrigator had some meaningful dialogue, regarding his annual performance review and related pay increase. At her company, the Lead Irrigator (i.e., Crew Chief) is a non-exempt position responsible for servicing client irrigation needs, while also providing informal direction to less-seasoned Irrigation Technicians as needed. The Lead Irrigator is a top performer, demonstrating commitment to the company culture, with a lengthy tenure at the company.

At the time of our conversation, the owner was paying the Lead Irrigator an annual salary of $70,000. In the business owner’s mind, that salary blended two criteria: performance and retention. Due to the seasonal nature of irrigation work in Colorado, the business owner has tried to keep the Lead Irrigator on the payroll during the winter months when snow characterizes the workday more than replacing main lines.

He wants to stay with the company; she wants him to stay with the company. So far, it has worked out.

Like many green industry employees who have been ravaged by runaway inflation over the past several years, the Lead Irrigator was looking at this salary review as an opportunity to try and get caught up.

With that pretext in mind, let me go on a tangent for a moment.

The days of the status quo 3% annual pay raise to employees are long gone. Business owners can still give that trifling sum to new or underperforming employees; a sum their veteran or high-performing employees publicly regard as insulting. Depending upon the local labor market, high-caliber employees, with a modicum of career ambition, may test the market to see how much other companies value them.

What’s worse, is “quiet quitting.” This passive-aggressive response, is when a top performer “checks out,” by remaining employed by the company though performing at only a minimal level, just good enough to stay employed. That reaction is the employee’s cognitive attempt to reconcile the amount of output s/he should produce based on the paltry amount of input (i.e., pay) currently received from the company.

As a capitalist, I have long recommended that merit pay raises be distributed along the lines inherent within the Performance Planning Matrix: 0% for Deadwood; 3% for Problem Employees; 4-6% for Workhorses; and 7% for Stars. You do know it is called merit pay for a reason, right?

Or do you want your high-performers to quiet quit and resemble DMV employees while working for you?

Back from the tangent. The Lead Irrigator sought a revised annual salary “in the 80s.” With annual company revenue south of $5M, something “in the 80s” was a difficult number to approve. With that thought in mind, the business owner and I agreed to offer a respectable salary increase to the Lead Irrigator with a tiered bonus plan based on annual company revenue.

In specific, the business owner offered the Lead Irrigator a revised annual salary of $77,000, with a bonus of $2,000 if the company achieved $5M in annual revenue; an additional bonus of $2,000 if the company achieved $5.4M in annual revenue; and another bonus of $4,000 if the company achieved $5.8M in annual revenue; on top of the standard Christmas bonus of $2,500.

The Lead Irrigator accepted the revised compensation package.

The creative business owner deftly configured a compensation package balancing individual merit, seasonal retention, and company growth intended to sustain motivated effort from a top-tier employee.

How many of your top employees do you think are contemplating or currently engaged in “quiet quitting?

That number is too low.

Come up with an honest number, by thinking of the last time you were waiting in line at the DMV.

If you have any questions or comments about this topic or anything else related to human resources, Sign Up for Steve’s HR Helpdesk!