"Employees Have Already Closed Their Hearts"—The Spread of "Quiet Quitting" in American Workplaces and the Blind Spots of Managers

A serious anomaly is occurring in American workplaces.

It's not a visible phenomenon like mass resignations. Nor is it a loud protest like a strike. On the surface, it seems as if nothing is happening. Employees go to the office, attend online meetings, respond to chats, and complete the bare minimum of work by the deadline. Yet, somewhere in their hearts, they are already distancing themselves from the company.

This is what you might call "quiet quitting."

Employee engagement in the U.S. is stagnating. According to a Gallup survey, only about 30% of American workers are actively engaged in their jobs. Those who are passionate about their work, feel a sense of responsibility for their outcomes, and find meaning in their roles are becoming a minority. Conversely, many people are already psychologically detached from their companies, even while physically present at work.

A symbolic example of this issue is the character of Michael Scott, a boss from the U.S. version of the drama 'The Office.' He believes himself to be the "best boss," yet his subordinates endure meaningless meetings, awkward speeches, and mood-driven directives, simply waiting for the day to end.

The reason this setup was comedic is that many viewers recognized similar scenes. The workplace perceived by the boss and the one actually experienced by the subordinates are different. While the boss feels "the atmosphere is good," "the team is positive," and "I am listening," the employees on the ground feel "I don't know what's expected of me," "being honest will cause trouble," and "there's no reward for trying harder."

This disconnect is at the heart of the current workplace crisis.

The Problem Isn't "Unmotivated Employees"

When discussing declining engagement, explanations like "young people today lack enthusiasm," "remote work has made them lax," or "employees have lost their sense of responsibility" often arise. However, it's dangerous to dismiss it with just these reasons.

When people no longer find meaning in their work, there are usually reasons behind it. Efforts are met with ambiguous evaluation criteria. Goals frequently change. Expectations from superiors are not verbalized. When consulted, they are told to "figure it out on your own." Those who point out problems are somehow treated as troublemakers. As these experiences accumulate, people gradually learn.

"It's better not to say anything unnecessary."
"It's a loss to get seriously involved."
"Just do the bare minimum."

This is not laziness but a defensive reaction.

Psychological safety in the workplace is not simply about getting along well. It's about being able to admit mistakes, raise questions, express dissenting opinions, and ask for help without being punished, having one's evaluation lowered, or being treated as someone who disrupts the atmosphere.

In workplaces with low psychological safety, employees remain silent. Silence may appear peaceful at first glance. No one disagrees in meetings. There are no waves in chats. There are no objections to the boss's policies. However, this might be resignation rather than agreement.

And many managers fail to discern this difference.

True Feelings Emerge in "Closed Spaces" Rather Than Surveys

Companies conduct employee satisfaction surveys and engagement surveys. However, how honestly employees write in those surveys is another matter. Especially in companies with little trust in anonymity, employees dilute their true feelings, limiting them to "somewhat dissatisfied," or they provide safe answers.

This is because the most dangerous thing in the workplace is to become "the person who told the truth."

The COE's 2026 Psychological Safety Study attempts to view workplace realities from a different angle than typical internal surveys. It analyzes factors hindering psychological safety based on what people working in numerous companies and organizations worldwide have said in confidential consultations. The major issues that emerged were work-life balance, anxiety about job performance, and unclear goals.

These three issues may seem independent, but they are actually interconnected.

There is too much workload. Yet, what should be prioritized is unclear. The boss's expectations are vague, and yesterday's correct answer becomes today's incorrect one. Even if one tries to achieve results, what constitutes success is not shared. Continuing to work in such a state exhausts employees. When exhausted, they no longer have the energy to make new proposals or take on challenges. To avoid failure, they choose only safe actions.

In other words, the lack of psychological safety is not merely "a bad atmosphere." It robs the organization of its learning ability and creativity.

The Crisis of "Not Knowing What's Expected"

According to Gallup's survey, less than half of U.S. employees strongly feel they clearly understand what is expected of them at work. This is an extremely important figure.

In work, clarity of expectations is foundational. What should be achieved? What level is sufficient? Which tasks should be prioritized? To what extent can one make autonomous decisions? If these remain ambiguous, employees have no choice but to constantly read the room.

In workplaces where reading the room is necessary, the boss's mood takes precedence over the quality of work.

The problem with a Michael Scott-type boss is not just that they are comical. Under such a boss, the criteria for success keep shifting. Boldness is praised one day, caution is demanded the next. At one moment, they talk about "a workplace like a family," and in another, they don't listen to the honest opinions of subordinates. In such an environment, employees start reading the boss's reactions rather than their words.

What should be said in meetings to be appreciated?
Which issues should be ignored?
In front of whom should one remain silent?

In such workplaces, employees become smart. However, they become smart not for the company, but to protect themselves.

The Empathy for "Bosses Don't Notice" Seen on Social Media

 

Looking at the reactions on social media to this theme, while the spread of the article itself is still limited, there is broad empathy for the awareness of the issue.

On X, The Conversation U.S. introduced the article with the theme that American workers are already detached from their jobs, and like 'The Office,' bosses are the last to notice. This goes beyond merely sharing an article title, indicating that the disconnect between "boss's self-awareness" and "employee's experience" is a theme easily understood in many workplaces.

On Reddit, the same article was shared in an independent news community. The post highlighted the point that less than half of American workers clearly understand "what is expected of them," emphasizing that the article's focus is more on "unclear expectations" than "lack of motivation."

Furthermore, in related discussions on Reddit, in response to the question "Do managers realize when their most reliable employees are quietly quitting?" there were reactions like "bad managers don't notice. If they do, it's only after it becomes their problem." This aligns with the core of the current article. Even if employees close their hearts, it doesn't immediately show in the numbers. However, one day, it suddenly surfaces in the form of resignations, declining quality, team breakdowns, and deteriorating customer service.

On LinkedIn, in connection with the COE's psychological safety study, there were posts stating that psychological safety is not a "soft ideal" but a metric related to competitive advantage. The fact that such reactions exist on business-oriented social media indicates that psychological safety is beginning to be recognized not just as a buzzword in HR but as a management issue.

In summary, the reactions on social media show that on the side of the working people, there is a realization that "this is happening in my workplace too," while on the management side, there is an awareness of the challenge of "how to create psychological safety as a daily practice rather than a system." However, these two sides are not yet sufficiently connected.

Work-Life Balance Is Not "Indulgence" But a Sign of Limits

An important point in this article is that in the U.S., the issue of work-life balance is emerging as a greater concern than workplace trauma.

The work-life balance referred to here is not merely about "wanting to leave early" or "wanting a break." It refers to a state where the demands of work consistently exceed the worker's time and energy. In other words, just working normally is not enough for recovery. Anxiety about work lingers even on days off. Notifications are concerning even when at home. While remote work reduces commuting time, the boundary between work and life disappears.

Chronic fatigue exacerbates all workplace problems.

Tired people find it hard to take on challenges. It's difficult to be kind to others. It's hard to come up with new ideas. They want to hide mistakes. They lose the energy to confirm someone's ambiguous instructions. As a result, the workplace becomes increasingly quiet.

Managers misunderstand this silence as "calm."
However, the reality might be "there's no longer any desire to say anything."

AI and Employment Anxiety Further Silence People

There is another pressure in today's workplaces: employment anxiety due to AI.

Will AI take jobs, or will it assist them? Which tasks will change? In which direction is the company headed? Many employees are anxious. However, they cannot always speak openly about these anxieties at work. They don't want to be seen as reluctant to use AI or as someone who can't adapt to change. So they remain silent.

On the other hand, management says, "Let's use AI to increase productivity." However, there is no specific introduction policy or training on the ground. What can be entrusted to AI? Which decisions should humans make? How will evaluations change? Without such explanations, AI becomes an entity that increases the opacity of the workplace rather than a convenient tool.

Gallup's survey also states that the role of managers is crucial in the spread of AI usage. In the AI era, it is not enough for bosses to simply order "use new technology." They need to listen to the anxieties of the field, clarify expectations, and create an environment where learning from failure is possible.

If they fail to do so, the introduction of AI might accelerate the psychological detachment of employees rather than enhance engagement.

Why Managers Misjudge

Many managers do not have malicious intent. Rather, they try to be good managers. They advocate open doors, set up one-on-ones, conduct team building, and even use the term psychological safety.

Yet, employees don't speak their minds because words and actions don't align.

For example, a manager says, "Say anything." However, when someone actually expresses a concern, they become displeased. In meetings, they say, "I want honest opinions," but later distance those who express dissent. They say, "Let's learn from mistakes," yet publicly blame those who make them.

Employees watch the manager's reactions, not slogans.

Once people learn that "speaking the truth is a disadvantage," they remain silent from then on. No matter how much a manager talks about psychological safety, different rules are shared on the ground.

"Don't say the truth."
"Don't rock the boat."
"Give the answer the boss wants."

Thus, the organization becomes outwardly cooperative but internally distrusting.

Silence in the Workplace Is a Cost

The fear of employees quietly quitting is that it is not immediately visible as a loss. Resignations appear as a reduction in personnel. Absenteeism shows up in attendance data. However, psychological detachment takes time to manifest in numbers.

Important risks are not shared in meetings.
Customer dissatisfaction stops at the field level.
No improvement proposals are made.
New people are not nurtured.
Talented people consider changing jobs first.
Those who remain become even more defensive.

Ultimately, the company is surprised by "why did performance suddenly drop?" or "why did people suddenly leave?" But in reality, it wasn't sudden. Employees' hearts had already left much earlier.

The only thing is that the managers didn't notice.

What Companies Really Need to See

So, what should companies change?

First, clarify expectations. In workplaces where employees do not understand their roles, priorities, and evaluation criteria, engagement is hard to foster. The phrase "act autonomously" is convenient, but autonomy without direction breeds confusion. Managers must specifically communicate what constitutes success.

Second, realistically assess the workload. Chronic overload should not be normalized due to staff shortages or performance targets. It is contradictory to demand creativity and initiative in a workplace where employees are perpetually exhausted.

Third, protect those who speak their minds. Psychological safety cannot be created through training or posters. It is determined by how a manager reacts when someone asks a difficult question. Those who express dissent should not have their evaluations lowered. Those who report mistakes should not be blamed. Those who ask for help should not be treated as incompetent. This daily accumulation is what builds trust.

Fourth, consider the engagement of managers themselves. Frontline managers are often exhausted too. They are caught between top-down goals and bottom-up complaints, entrusted with teams without sufficient authority or training. If managers are worn out, they have no capacity to support the psychological safety of their subordinates. Leadership issues are not just about the personalities of individual managers but also about how the organization supports them.

It's Not That "Employees Have Changed," But the Premises of the Workplace Have Collapsed

Since the pandemic, the values of working people have changed. Should work be the center of life? Is loyalty to the company rewarded? Does working long hours guarantee stability? Many people are more skeptical of these questions than before.

Companies that view this change as "selfishness" misinterpret the problem.

Employees do not necessarily not want to work. Many people want to do meaningful work. Some want to grow. Some want to contribute to the team. However, for that, a trustworthy environment is necessary. In the midst of ambiguous expectations, excessive burdens, unrewarded efforts, and punished honesty, people cannot remain positive for long.

What this article indicates is that the decline in engagement in American workplaces is not merely a matter of mood. It is a disconnect between leadership and field sense, a lack of psychological safety, and a structural problem that exhausts the energy of working people