Quiet Quitting Is Happening In Boardrooms
This is a ONE THING article, which is featured in FDI’s monthly newsletter.
Author - FDI Founder, Paul Smith
ONE THING is for the busy (speak of the devil) Future Director, in which FDI Founder Paul Smith picks just one thing Future Directors oughta know or do or stew on for the next month. We hope you get something (at least one thing) out of it.
If you’re a Future Director, you’re probably on this pulse already. But just in case you’re not, here’s a great primer by the Washington Post.
Essentially, quiet quitting is a new word for a very old thing. Employee Disengagement. A rejection of hustle culture. A resistance against the idea of going ‘above and beyond’ at work, and instead, doing the bare minimum to not be fired but keep your sanity.
Hot off the heels of the Great Resignation, it signals a greater submission. In a workworld where inflation and a hypercompetitive job market has made straight-up quitting a financially dangerous prospect, quiet quitting is the safer (only?) option. It reeks of frustration with corporate systems that seem gamed against you. Workplace cultures that expect you to wring out every last drop of brain juice you’ve got - way beyond your contractual duties.
In the coming weeks, concern about quiet quitting is sure to float its way up to the C suite and the boardroom.
But I want to pose a question.
Isn't it already there?
If you’ve served on a board (or boards) for any substantial time, you’ll know there are directors who are totally disengaged. They’ve quietly quit.
They’re the ones who are passive in discussions and flat. The ones who don’t prepare, or even show up. The fact that most boards get together only once a month, means they’re ripe for absenteeism and disengagement.
Another, more subtle sign that a director’s quietly quit? Pushing their personal agenda. Go with me on this. In my experience, when a director feels detached or uninspired by an org’s position, they’ll forcefully inject their own personal hobby-horses into decisions and strategies, in an attempt to keep themselves interested in the work. This isn’t helpful ‘cause it’s done regardless of the actual needs of the business – and sometimes against them.
With most board roles unpaid, another question that invariably flits through directors’ minds is – why dedicate so much time to this job? Why go above and beyond at all?
My question is different – how can Future Directors re-engage their quietly quit colleagues? Or, better, forge a rich board culture that keeps directors engaged in the first place?
Here’s some suggestions.
Focus your efforts on creating a psychologically safe space. That means, a place where people can be honest and vulnerable without fearing judgement. This can be done by engaging in Deep Democracy – a method of debate to bubble unspoken opinions to the surface. It can also be done by penning a wellbeing plan. But perhaps most effectively, it can be done by genuinely opening up, perhaps to one person at first, then those two become three, then four, and so on. A psychologically safe space means debate will be lively, friendly, and fruitful. Making directors less dready and more active.
Another suggestion – switch up the format. 100% of board meetings seem to follow the same basic structure. They also always happen in the same place, with people always sitting in the same chairs. This sets the power dynamics in the room in the exact same position each time. Which contributes to a sense of stagnance. That’s why trying different meeting formats, roleplaying exercises, switching up a venue, or even just repositioning the table and chairs in the room could keep the board fresh and engaged.
Here’s where I’ll leave it – in the sense that quiet quitting is the setting of work/life boundaries, that’s good. If it signposts a culture of disengagement, that’s not. Let’s ask ourselves honestly if our boards are suffering from that culture. And whether removing the table and putting the chairs in a circle like an AA meeting, might just keep everyone loud and engaged.
