Quiet Quitting and Antiwork Sentiment Through the Lens of Motivation Theory: A Qualitative Study

Quiet quitting (QQ; e.g., “a protest against the perceived negative well-being impacts of meeting work demands by strategically withdrawing from or avoiding selected tasks”; Samnani & Robertson, 2025, p. 3) and antiwork (AW; e.g., “a multifaceted, negative view of work…in and of itself”; Alliger & McEachern, 2024, p. 2) became prominent across social media and the popular press in the early 2020s (Eyþórsson & Innanen, 2024). Since then, scholars have put their focus toward understanding the underpinnings and impact of both QQ and AW. For example, in The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist (TIP), Mazur et al. (2023) called attention to the need to clearly operationalize QQ; in 2024, Human Resource Management presented a call for papers on QQ; and now a 2025-date adjusted search for “quiet quitting organizational psychology” on Google Scholar yields 4,470 results. Although this topic has certainly received attention over the past 3 years, we found it necessary to continue investigating QQ and AW using Herzberg’s two-factor theory as a framework to “assess and understand” (Dartey-Baah & Amoako, 2011) employee needs due its recognizability, practical relevance (Stello, 2011), and implications for job design (Pinder, 2008).

As mentioned, this paper explores QQ and AW through the lens of Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Herzberg’s two-factor theory supposes aspects intrinsic (e.g., recognition) to the work itself contribute to job satisfaction and those extrinsic (e.g., salary) contribute to dissatisfaction. We take a qualitative approach to comments extracted from Reddit forums /r/AskReddit and /r/ Antiwork. We hypothesize that QQ comments will align more with Herzberg’s motivation factors, whereas AW comments will align more with Herzberg’s hygiene factors. We propose these hypotheses due to the notion that QQ sentiment generally concerns “the personal relationship between the worker and the job” (Pinder, 2008, p. 34), whereas AW sentiment concerns, among others, “working conditions” (Brossoit & Wong, 2023, para. 1). For example, QQ reflects motivation factor deficits (e.g., employees withdrawing discretionary effort when growth or recognition are absent), whereas AW stems from hygiene failures (e.g., low pay, abusive supervision, toxic workplace conditions). Beyond Herzberg, however, our study provides managers and organizations with a general framework into where and how they may drive change to provide a fulfilling environment for employees.

 Theory and Hypotheses

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Herzberg’s (1959) two-factor theory is a theory of motivation that concerns job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The theory comprises two factors: motivation factors and hygiene factors. Motivation factors (Advancement, The Work Itself, Possibility for Growth, Responsibility, Recognition, and Achievement) relate to the extrinsic nature of the work itself and have the potential to enhance an employee’s sense of fulfillment and achievement. Hygiene factors (Interpersonal Relations, Salary, Policies and Administration, Supervision, and Working Conditions) refer to elements that are extrinsic to the work itself and are necessary for creating a satisfactory work environment, thus “prevent[ing] dissatisfaction” (Sachau, 2007, p. 380). Herzberg suggests that the presence of motivation factors at work leads to higher levels of motivation, job engagement, and overall job satisfaction, whereas the absence of hygiene factors may lead to job dissatisfaction and demotivation.

The theory has attracted renewed attention among academics due to its relevance to well-being, mental health, and positive psychology (Ann & Blunn, 2020; Sachau, 2007). Although controversy (e.g., methodology, validity, employee self-serving attribution bias) and debate have surrounded Herzberg’s two-factor theory for decades (Pinder, 2008; Sachau, 2007), its practical application as a framework to broadly understand employee satisfaction has been “widely embraced by managers” (Sachau, 2007, p. 377). Therefore, by understanding and addressing both motivation and hygiene factors, organizations can create work environments that combat QQ and AW.

Quiet Quitting and Motivation Factors

At its core, QQ relates to employees “doing the bare minimum” and not “going above and beyond” at work (Aydin & Azizoglu, 2022, p. 287). Academics may recognize the notion of QQ as “disengagement” (Afrahi et al., 2022) and notions of going above and beyond as “discretionary effort” (Lloyd, 2008; Zenger & Folkman, 2022). Therefore, QQ can be conceptualized as a reduction in discretionary effort and a limit of the work performed to baseline expectations. A 2022 Global Workplace survey by Gallup suggested around 19% of the workforce was actively disengaged at the time, with quiet quitters making up “at least 50% of the U.S. workforce” (Harter, 2022). Some suggest a lack of advancement opportunities, a lack of recognition, or a lack of clear purpose trigger QQ (Aydin & Azizoglu, 2022; Zenger & Folkman, 2022). For example, the 2022 Gallup survey suggests disengaged employees report dissatisfaction with their learning and development opportunities (Harter, 2022).

These areas of concern among quiet quitters (e.g., lack of recognition, lack of advancement opportunities) align particularly well to Herzberg’s (1959) motivation factors. Given that motivation factors relate to the intrinsic nature of the work itself and that quiet quitters may perceive ambiguity around their work expectations, perceive their employers to “not care” about them (Delery et al., 2023), and desire greater work–life balance, we investigate whether quiet quitters will voice greater concern regarding Herzberg’s motivation factors. Considering the lack of empirical research into QQ, we put forth preliminary insight that suggests QQ sentiment relates to the six motivation factors.

1. Advancement: A 2021 Pew research survey suggests 63% of workers (37% major reason, 26% minor reason) cited “no opportunities for advancement” as a reason for leaving their job, the second highest reason behind pay.
2. The work itself: An emphasis on work–life balance and well-being, although limiting discretionary efforts toward job tasks, suggests that quiet quitters are decentering the work itself and prioritizing emotional, mental, and physical health (Aydin & Azizoglu, 2022; Mahand & Caldwell, 2023).
3. The possibility for growth: Dillard et al. (2024) suggest that QQ can be interpreted as an expression of need for self-directed career development and growth in job-related competencies.
4. Responsibility: Given that quiet quitters prioritize personal life and well-being over organizational goals (Atalay & Dağıstan, 2024; Serenko, 2023), responsibility beyond what is listed in their job description may instigate negative attitudes toward the organization.
5. Recognition: Popular press articles suggest quiet quitters often feel underappreciated (Anderson, 2023; Fallon, 2022). Previous studies indicate that underappreciation and lack of recognition relate to cynicism (Toppinen‐Tanner et al., 2002) and job switching (Sufyan & Maqsood, 2010).
6. Achievement: Karrani et al. (2024) found that amplifying job impact and reducing feelings of alienation from the work can reduce the likelihood of QQ behaviors, indicating there is a link between QQ and what individuals can achieve at work.

Given the relevance of QQ to aspects extrinsic to the work itself, we propose the following hypothesis to test how a lack of motivation factors is represented within QQ sentiment. However, we do not expect motivation factors to align with QQ concerns exclusively. For example, as Delery et al. (2023) suggest, quiet quitters may reduce discretionary effort due to work conditions, pay, or supervision, all of which are hygiene factors. Pay, for example, is particularly of note due to its salience and proportionality in relation to satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Pinder, 2008).

Hypothesis 1: A higher proportion of QQ sentiment will align to Herzberg’s motivation factors compared to hygiene factors.

Antiwork and Hygiene Factors

Unlike QQ, AW has steady roots in societal and work-related movements. AW has gained recent attention in the public eye (Alliger, 2021). Yet, although the public’s interest in AW is growing, conceptual clarity on AW in our field is in its infancy (Brossoit & Wong, 2023). Burgeoning literature suggests two primary conceptualizations of AW: (a) AW as a philosophy and (b) AW as a construct (Olson et al., 2024). The philosophical approach suggests that work is exploitative, misstructured, and is “degrading, authoritarian, and violating” (Olson et al. 2024, p. 79). For example, AW philosophy highlights “inequities at work” and “improving working conditions,” culminating in the notion that “nobody wants to work like this anymore” (Brossoit & Wong, 2023). AW the construct concerns a “multifaced, negative appraisal [e.g., an attitude or belief held by individuals]…of work” (Olson et al. 2024, p. 79). In this way, AW is measurable, felt, and/or expressed, and may predict or be predicted by other organizational constructs (Olson et al., 2024).

AW brought greater attention to exposing toxic workplaces, overwork, unrealistic expectations of work, and living wage demands, among others (Kawamoto, 2023; Smith & Guillotin, 2022). Tenets of this movement suggest many organizations are experiencing or will experience marked change in the relationship between employee and employer. For example, employees may demand organizations to protect jobs and wages, enhance social safety nets and benefits, and provide greater support through policy (Deloitte, 2023).

Given the similarity in AW sentiment to Herzberg’s (1959) hygiene factors, we investigate whether r/ Antiwork comments align to the notion that needs for better work conditions, supervision, salary, and policy are unmet. Further, hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job itself and align well to the core tenets of the AW movement—those rooted in the cultural, societal, and political factors surrounding work. Below we outline insight on how hygiene factors may be driving dissatisfaction expressed by AW sentiment:

1. Interpersonal relations: The US Surgeon General had announced a loneliness epidemic years ago (McGregor, 2017) and again more recently (Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, 2023). This phenomenon has extended into the workplace as well, with just “two in 10 employees in the U.S. [reporting] a ‘best friend’ at work” (Kitterman, 2023, para. 10). Notably, coworker emotional support has been found to relate to reduced turnover (Tews et al., 2019).
2. Salary: In a text analysis of Reddit’s r/ Antiwork community, salary was the second-most cited cause of not re-engaging with the job market postpandemic (Smith & Guillotin, 2022). Further, perceptions of procedural and distributive justice have been found to relate to pay level and pay raise satisfaction, respectively (Tekleab et al., 2005)—both of which have policy and administrative implications.
3. Policies and administration: Research suggests informational justice relates positively to the policy implications of pay (Jawahar & Stone, 2011). Further, many employees have questioned policies surrounding the 40-hour work week status quo (Aitken et al., 2023; Hua, 2021).
4. Supervision: Much AW sentiment is rooted in abusive or uncivil supervision. For example, Shuster (2022) cites the following r/ Antiwork post:

A screen capture of a text conversation with the poster’s ‘Boss’ in which the boss is scolding the poster for sitting on a stool during their shift. The worker is offended and mentions their high productivity in defense, the boss snaps back about “being respectful” and how speaking back is the wrong “type of behavior.” At this point the worker decides they are going to quit and signs off with “No thanks. Have a good life.” (p. 23)

5. Working conditions: Many studies have shifted to exploring the effects of remote work on employee mental and physical health (De Vincenzi et al., 2022; Elbogen, 2022). Additionally, the focus on service and essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic made salient the conditions and circumstances in which work should be performed, and what jobs must continue during emergencies (Torpey, 2020).

Similar to our hypothesis on QQ, we do not expect hygiene factors to align exclusively to AW sentiment. It would be unrealistic to expect AW employees to not have concerns with recognition or advancement, for example. However, given the strong emphasis of AW on hierarchy, work conditions, and equity, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: A higher proportion of AW sentiment will align to Herzberg’s hygiene factors compared to motivation factors.

Method

Data Collection

The social media platform Reddit was used to collect comment data from two subreddits r/AskReddit (N = 478) and r/ AW (N = 301) in 2023, which included posts containing substantial discussion around QQQQ and AW. Reddit is a social media platform where users post content to subreddits, which are dedicated to specific topics, interests, or themes. Reddit offered free access to their data through their application programming interface (API), which remains free to download and use for research (Amaya et al., 2021; DePatie et al., 2021; Reddit, 2024). However, it is important to note that Reddit users are anonymous, are more likely to identify as men, and are more likely to be younger in age (e.g., 79% of users report an age of 18–34 years; Amaya et al., 2021). Consequently, any conclusions drawn from this dataset may be limited in their applicability beyond the specific online communities studied.

Reddit posts were accessed using the RedditExtractoR package (Rivera, 2023) for the R computing platform (R Core Team, 2021). The RedditExtractoR package provides functionality for searching and retrieving Reddit posts based on key terms and other criteria. Searches of Reddit posts were conducted using key terms including “quiet quit” and “antiwork.” Search results were sorted in descending order based on total comments included in the post. Separate search results for QQ and AW were examined to select posts that elicited motivations for engaging in either of the two behaviors. Table 1 presents the selected posts used as corpuses for analysis of themes, as well as associated comments and participant counts.

Analytical Approach

Topic models were used to analyze the QQ and AW corpuses to explore themes within the comments. Topic models are a group of unsupervised machine learning techniques that can identify sets of themes present in textual data (Schmiedel et al., 2019). One approach to topic modeling is to group together comments with similar content by clustering them based on their underlying semantic representations (Grootendorst, 2022). Large language models (LLMs), specifically sentence-transformer models, are used to produce sentence embeddings, which capture the semantic meaning of each comment in a high-dimensional space (Reimers & Gurevych, 2019). These models transform each comment into a numerical embedding that captures its semantic meaning. Comments with similar embeddings tend to contain similar sentiment, allowing for the grouping of comments that discuss similar themes or topics, even if they use different wording.

Separate topic models were fit for each corpus related to QQ and AW. Topic modeling was conducted using the BERTopic library (Grootendorst, 2022) for Python (Van Rossum & Drake, 2009). BERTopic is a topic modeling framework that clusters texts using sentence embeddings generated from sentence-transformer models (Reimers & Gurevych, 2019). As sentence embeddings are typically high-dimensional (Grootendorst, 2022), BERTopic makes use of the uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP; McInnes et al., 2018) algorithm for dimension reduction. After dimension reduction, texts are clustered using the hierarchical density-based clustering algorithm (HDBSCAN; McInnes et al., 2017). Once comments are grouped into clusters, class-based term-frequency inverse document frequency (C-TF-IDF; Grootendorst, 2022) scores are used to identify keywords or phrases most important to each cluster. The process used for exploring topics in each corpus is illustrated in Figure 1, and detailed information related to the process is contained in the Appendix. Counts of corpus sentences mapped to hygiene and motivation factors, as well as their relevant subfactors, are presented in Table 2 for the QQ corpus and Table 3 for the AW corpus. In addition, differences in proportions among motivation and hygiene factors and subfactors between the QQ and AW corpuses were examined using chi-square tests of association and row-wise proportion Z-tests.

Figure 1
Flowchart of the Topic Modeling Process for Analyzing QQ and AW Corpuses   

Results

Topic proportions of corpus content related to motivation and hygiene factors across AW and QQ were cross tabulated in a 2 X 2 table for further analysis. A chi-square test of independence was conducted to test whether there was a relationship between motivation/hygiene theme counts and AW/QQ corpus counts. The chi-square test of independence revealed a significant association between motivation/ hygiene factor counts and AW/QQ counts, X²(1, 1993) = 49.30, p < .001. This suggests that the distribution of theme counts varied significantly between the AW and QQ corpuses.

Pairwise and row-wise proportion tests were used to probe the relationship between theme counts and corpus type. Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be higher proportion of motivation content in the QQ corpus than hygiene content, whereas Hypothesis 2 predicted a higher proportion of hygiene content in the AW corpus than motivation content. A pairwise proportion test revealed that hygiene factors were proportionally more prevalent among the two corpuses than motivation factors, p < .001. This suggests that hygiene factors are more frequently mentioned among both AW and QQ proponents than motivation factors. This result fails to find support for Hypothesis 1 but provides support for Hypothesis 2.

To further explore the relationship between theme counts and corpus type, row-wise proportions tests were used to compare the proportion of hygiene and motivation content in the QQ and AW corpuses. The results of the row-wise proportion tests suggest that motivation factors were significantly more prevalent in the QQ corpus (43.98%, p < .001) compared to the AW corpus (27.83%), whereas hygiene factors were significantly more prevalent in the AW corpus (72.16%; p < .001) compared to the QQ corpus (56.02%). These results indicate that Herzberg’s motivation factors may be more important to QQ than AW.

Discussion

Notably, both QQ and AW reported a greater proportion of hygiene than motivation factors in their comments. This finding is not surprising due to similar sentiment regarding working conditions, salary, and supervision between the two groups (Delery et al., 2023; Brossoit & Wong, 2023). However, results suggest that QQ comment a greater proportion of motivation factors than AW, while AW comment a greater proportion of hygiene factors than QQ. This finding is congruent with the notion that QQ sentiment is driven by intrinsic factors at work while AW sentiment is driven by extrinsic factors. Therefore, the results of our study provide preliminary evidence on which aspects of work are frequently mentioned by QQ and AW, and provide an outline on key similarities and differences between them.

Regarding QQ, 44% of comments aligned to Herzberg’s motivation factors. Among these, advancement (21%), recognition (14%), and responsibility (7%) were most frequent. Often, quiet quitters voiced frustration regarding a lack of advancement opportunities and employers denying their opportunity for advancement:

We just feel like promoting you would put us in a bad position because of how critical you are in your current position (166)

I used to be a typical yes sir type who would take on any and all responsibilities, until I got passed over for a management position because someone else had more relevant experience. (235)

I had similar at my last job, i was training people on machines, those people were then getting promoted above me and they refused to promote me, so i quit. (318)

Regarding recognition, quiet quitters cited that they once had a strong work ethic, were not recognized for their extra-role behaviors, and were putting in too much effort:

I had a lot of extra work but i thought “i’ll show that i’m reliable and motivated.” (1159)

I know that I’m in the minority, but as an adult, I’ve always tried my absolute best at every job that I’ve had. (1179)

If you give more and get nothing in return, why would you continue? (1209)

When it came to responsibility, quiet quitters voiced setting boundaries between unwritten expectations above and beyond the job description:

I’m glad people are setting better boundaries in the workplace. (1650)

Boundaries are valid no matter how much you get paid. (1656)

As someone who used to bust my ass and bend over backwards I stopped. (1793)

These responses suggest that individuals with QQ sentiment are searching for developmental and meaningful opportunities at work. Without options for recognition or advancement, many employees have chosen to default to the “bare minimum” required at their jobs. However, the remaining 56% of topics were made up of hygiene factors, with working conditions (19%) and salary (15%) most frequent. This finding indicates that many quiet quitters also lack hygiene factors.

Further, our results found 72% of AW comments to align with hygiene factors. Proportionally, AW commented a significantly greater amount on hygiene factors than quiet quitters. This finding aligned with Hypothesis 2, where we posed the question of whether hygiene factors would align to AW comments. Unfortunately, these findings indicate that the majority of AW do not have sufficient hygiene factors present in their work, leaving many of their needs unmet. Supervision (18%), Working Conditions (18%), and Interpersonal Relations (15%) comprised the top three most frequent hygiene factors, with Salary (14%) a close fourth. Supervision was primarily represented by poor managerial practices, which spanned everything from being ignored by supervisors to workplace abuse:

They tell me everything was wrong, but didn’t explain why, after hearing from the grape vine, one thing was wrong and I wasn’t even the person that worked on it. (12)

My supervisor gave me work to do over the weekend. (63)

Pandemic really showed that the managers didn’t care. (79)

Working conditions was primarily represented by work exhaustion—how individuals felt after work:

I’m way too exhausted at the end of the work day to do anything other then prepare for the next day. (1032)

I was in my first year on the job and already burnt out. (1060)

Months of waking up (when it’s dark outside), working 10-12hrs, getting home and it already being dark again isn’t very fun. (1045)

Motivators were present to a lesser degree in this sample (28%), indicating that AW may be driven primarily by a lack of hygiene factors.

Although not the dominant hygiene factor among either set of comments, salary was discussed frequently in both QQ (15%) and AW (14%) posts. However, among quiet quitters, the discussion of salary often related to recognition, raises, and job hopping:

Raises aren’t different for people who work harder anymore. (436)

I learned a long time ago that you get the same 2.5% raise as everyone else regardless. (443)

So I just need to hang out somewhere for 2-3 years and then leave for a 10-20% raise. (459)

For antiworkers, many salary comments concerned executive compensation, and lack of raises, and minimum/living wage:

But hey our CEO and the executive level staff have millionaire salaries and bonus options. (1134)

The raises we received never keep up with the cost of living and there were years we didn’t get any raises. (1153)

Watching grown ups talk about why nobody wants to perform well for minimum wage, MINIMUM. (1169)

Of course, there were similar comments regarding salary, and other motivation and hygiene factors, between quiet quitters and antiworkers. For example, with salary, both groups lamented wage stagnation and cost of living, both discussed job hopping to increase salary, and both made comparisons between executive salaries and their own.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Theoretically, our study examines QQ and AW via the lens of motivation and the first to apply Herzberg’s two-factor theory. However, our study is not an attempt to test or validate Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Our specific contribution to the QQ and AW literatures consists of the exploration and identification of unmet motivation and hygiene needs among the respective groups. We hope these findings will be used as a steppingstone for further research on motivation, QQ, and AW. Practically, we hope organizations and managers will take note of the factors expressed by quiet quitters and antiworkers. For example, both quiet quitters and antiworkers commented frequently on supervision. From “abusive” to “incompetent” supervision to supervisors “changing the time sheet,” many higher ups engage in behaviors that instigate counterproductive workplace behaviors, deviance, emotional exhaustion, turnover, and job withdrawal among employees (Foulk et al., 2016; Gallegos et al., 2022).

Further, for quiet quitters, managers may consider tenets of the job demands-resources theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) as guiding principles to help increase structural job resources (e.g., development opportunities) or decrease hindrance demands (e.g., monitoring the emotional toll of work), for example. Also, managers may consider further job crafting and positive psychology strategies such as SMART goal nudges (Weintraub et al., 2021) to help the work itself and subsequent responsibilities become more manageable. For antiworkers, employers may consider revisiting the implications of existing policies and human resource management practices (Delery et al., 2023) on working conditions. For example, scheduling (e.g., “inflexible work schedules”) and hiring practices (e.g., “they hire basically anyone”) may influence AW sentiment among employees.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

Given this insight, practitioners may further leverage Herzberg’s two-factor theory to assess, understand, develop, and implement programs that “foster motivation and productivity” (Mitsakis & Galanakis, 2022, para. 12). Beyond this, our study offers several notable strengths. First, our study answered calls for research on AW and QQ through a timely qualitative study. Next, due to the anonymous nature of Reddit, the commenters in our sample may have felt at liberty to “express their true beliefs” (Amaya et al., 2021, para. 2), which iscritical due to the controversial nature of QQ and AW among employers.

Our study, however, is not without limitations. First, Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation theory has been subject to debate within I-O psychology for decades. However, our aim was not to examine or validate the theoretical tenets of Herzberg’s two-factor theory but to use the theory as a framework for practitioners and academics to understand common needs among quiet quitters and antiworkers. Researchers may further investigate these populations using more widely accepted theories of motivation (e.g., goal setting theory, job demands-resources). Also, using a Reddit sample as a corpus for understanding motivations underlying QQ and AW limits our understanding of demographic data, so the thoughts and sentiments of the Reddit community may not reflect the broader U.S. population of workers. Future research in this area should examine alternative samples of employed workers that may better generalize to the U.S. population at large.

The present study used a qualitative analysis focused on understanding and interpreting user-generated content in an online community influenced by various external factors, social interactions, and the dynamic nature of online discourse. Thus, it lacked the experimental control necessary to establish causation among factors, making it challenging to attribute causality to the observed patterns. Future studies should employ designs aimed at understanding the causal relationship between the factors (or tenets of other theories of motivation) and AW or QQ sentiment.

Additionally, the prevalence of burnout and work exhaustion found in the comments, particularly evident in specific industries or occupations (i.e., restaurant and food service, laboratory science) highlights the need for additional research in this area. Future research should investigate whether these are residual emotions resulting from societal disruptions or whether this sentiment is representative of employees from those industries and occupations. Future research should further examine the role that hygiene and motivation factors can play in ameliorating burnout and QQ or AW sentiment within specific industries and occupations.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, organizations may shy away from addressing QQ and AW head on due to the negative connotations associated with these movements (e.g., being “anti-capitalist” and “against jobs as they are structured under…the state”). Early AW texts (Brush, 2012) suggest “human resource managers ceaselessly con workers into thinking that maximum work effort on behalf of the firm is synonymous with self-development and personhood” (p. 231). However, as I-O psychology researchers and practitioners, we recognize and champion the organizational and individual benefits of appropriate motivation and satisfaction at work. Yet, given the popularity of both movements, it is likely employees are familiar with, have empathized with, or have engaged in QQ or AW attitudes, cognitions, or behaviors. However, our field is uniquely suited to notice and address the proliferation of issues that may arise when employee needs are unmet. Therefore, it is important to understand what may lead to QQ and AW sentiment.

In line with Brossoit and Wong’s (2023) reflection, we hope our contribution helps researchers and practitioners to explore the nature of QQ and AW. Further, we hope our study will inform evidence-based solutions to improve relationships between employees, managers, and organizations. Given our findings, managers and organizations may broadly address hygiene factors to aid the needs of both quiet quitters and antiworkers. Further, managers and organizations may focus on motivation factors for quiet quitters and double down on hygiene factors for antiworkers. Although more research is needed to operationalize, explore, and validate findings related to QQ and AW, we hope this simple intrinsic‒extrinsic distinction will provide value to those addressing the complex nature of workplace motivation and satisfaction.

References

Afrahi, B., Blenkinsopp, J., de Arroyabe, J. C. F., & Karim, M. S. (2022). Work disengagement: A review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 32(2), Article 100822.

Aitken, J. A. (Chair), Kaplan, S. A., Allan, B. A., Alliger, G. C., & Ballard, T. (2023). Working all our livelong days: Discussing Keynes’s 15-hour workweek prediction. Panel presented at the 38^th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Boston.

Alliger, G. (2021). Anti-work (1st ed.). Taylor and Francis.

Alliger , G. M., & McEachern, P. J. (2024). Anti-work offers many opportunities for I-O psychologists. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 1-30.

Amaya, A., Bach, R., Keusch, F., & Kreuter, F. (2021). New data sources in social science research: Things to know before working with Reddit data. Social Science Computer Review, 39(5), 943-960.

Anderson, S. (2023). Is quiet quitting still a thing? What to do if you’ve found yourself unfulfilled at work. https://www.rollingstone.com/product-recommendations/lifestyle/how-to-avoid-job-burnout-1234690693/

Ann, S., & Blum, S. C. (2020). Motivating senior employees in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(1), 324-346.

Atalay, M. & Dağıstan, U. (2024). Quiet quitting: A new wine in an old bottle? Personnel Review, 53(4), 1059–1074. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2023-0122

Aydin, E., & Azizoğlu, Ö. (2022). A new term for an existing concept: Quiet quitting-a self-determination perspective. Neuroscience, December, 285-295. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366530514_A_NEW_TERM_FOR_AN_EXISTING_CONCEPT_QUIET_QUITTING-A_SELF-_DETERMINATION_PERSPECTIVE

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273.

Brossoit, R. M. & Wong, J. R. (2023). “Nobody wants to work anymore”: Reflecting on I-O psychology’s assumptions and values through the lens of the aw movement. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 60(4).

Brush, L. D. (2012). Book Review: The problem with work: Feminism, Marxism, antiwork politics, and postwork imaginaries. Work and Occupations 39(2), 230-232. DOI:10.1177/0730888412443494

Dartey-Baah, K., & Amoako, G. K. (2011). Application of Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory in assessing and understanding employee motivation at work: A Ghanaian perspective. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(9), 1-8.

Delery, J. E., Magrizos, S., Roumpi, D., Phillips, J., & Porter, C. (2023). Special issue call for papers the disquiet of quiet quitting: Understanding and applications of a popular trend in HRM scholarship & practice. Human Resource Management. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370870331_Special_Issue_-_Call_for_Papers_The_Disquiet_of_Quiet_Quitting_Understanding_and_Applications_of_a_Popular_Trend_in_HRM_Scholarship_Practice

Deloitte. (2023). New fundamentals for a boundaryless world. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-trends.html

DePatie, T. P., Islam, S., Lyew, A., & Moran, B. (2021). Let’s not boil the ocean: A 30,000-foot view of human capital consulting firm Twitter use. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 21(2), 56-69.

De Vincenzi, C., Pansini, M., Ferrara, B., Buonomo, I., & Benevene, P. (2022). Consequences of COVID-19 on employees in remote working: Challenges, risks and opportunities an evidence-based literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 11672. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811672

Dillard, N., Cavallo, T., & Zhang, P. (2024). A return to humanism: A multi-level analysis exploring the positive effects of quiet quitting. Human Resource Development Review, 24(2), 1-30. 10.1177/15344843241305655.

Elbogen, E., Lanier, M., Griffin, S., Blakey, S. M., Gluff, J. A., Wagner, R., & Tsai, J. (2022). A national study of zoom fatigue and mental health during the covid-19 pandemic: Implications for future remote work. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 409-415. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0257

Eyþórsson, V. O., & Innanen, S. (2024). The influence of anti-work orientation and organizational dehumanization on counterproductive work behavior and quiet quitting. https://lnu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1866244/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Fallon, N. (2022). How to motivate employees to prevent quiet quitting. https://www.uschamber.com/co/run/human-resources/motivation-strategies-to-prevent-quiet-quitting

Foulk, T., Woolum, A., & Erez, A. (2016). Catching rudeness is like catching a cold: The contagion effects of low-intensity negative behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 50.

Gallegos, I., Guàrdia-Olmos, J., & Berger, R. (2022). Abusive supervision: A systematic review and new research approaches. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 640908.

Grootendorst, M. (2022). BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794.

Harter, J. (2022, September 6). Is quiet quitting real? Gallup Inc. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/398306/quiet-quitting-real.aspx

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Hua, V. (2021). Rethinking the 40-hour workweek. http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp018049g817v

Jawahar, I. M., & Stone, T. H. (2011). Fairness perceptions and satisfaction with components of pay satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 297-312.

Karrani, M.A., Bani-Melhem, S., Mohd-Shamsudin, F., Usman, M. and Boğan, E. (2024). Quiet quitting behaviours: Investigating trigger factors and mitigation strategies through relational job design, work alienation, and inclusive leadership. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-08-2024-4748

Kawamoto, D.  (2023, May 8). The antiwork movement: What it is and why it’s growing. https://builtin.com/company-culture/antiwork-movement

Kitterman, T. (2023, May 22). How workplaces can address the loneliness crisis. https://www.greatplacetowork.com/resources/blog/how-workplaces-can-address-the-loneliness-crisis

Lloyd, R. (2008). Discretionary effort and the performance domain. Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology, 1, 22-34.

Mahand, T., & Caldwell, C. (2023). Quiet quitting–causes and opportunities. Business and Management Research, 12(1), 9-19. DOI:10.5430/bmr.v12n1p9

Mazur, C., Stelzner, G., Mustafa, H., & Sachau, D. (2023). I’d quiet quit if i knew what it was. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 60(3).

McGregor, J. (2017, October 4). This former surgeon general says there’s a “loneliness epidemic” and work is partly to blame. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/10/04/this-former-surgeon-general-says-theres-a-loneliness-epidemic-and-work-is-partly-to-blame/

McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Astels, S. (2017). hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering. Journal of Open Source Software, 2(11), 205.

McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Melville, J. (2018). Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint:1802.03426.

Mitsakis, M., & Galanakis, M. (2022). An empirical examination of Herzberg’s theory in the 21st century workplace. Organizational psychology re-examined. Psychology, 13(2), 264-272.

Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. (2023). Our epidemic of loneliness and isolation. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-social-connection-advisory.pdf

Olson, A. M., DeSimone, J. A., Mills, M. J., Ford, M. T., & Butler, S. (2024). A tale of two antiworks. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 79-84.

Pinder, C. C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Psychology Press.

R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <https://www.R-project.org/>.

Reddit (2024, October 3). Key facts to understanding Reddit’s recent API updates. Upvoted. https://redditinc.com/blog/apifacts#:~:text=Key%20dates%20for%20our%20API%20Terms%20and%20Services&text=Effective%20July%201%2C%202023%2C%20the,are%20not%20using%20OAuth%20authentication.

Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT-networks. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.10084

Rivera I (2023). RedditExtractoR: Reddit data extraction toolkit. R package version 3.0.9. <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RedditExtractoR>

Sachau, D. A. (2007). Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the positive psychology movement. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4), 377-393.

Samnani , A. K., & Robertson, K. (2025). More than a personal decision: A relational theory of quiet quitting. Human Resource Management, 64(5) 1321-1335.

Serenko, A. (2023). The human capital management perspective on QQ: recommendations for employees, managers, and national policymakers. Advanced online publication. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2022-0792

Seyferth, P. (2019). Anti-work: A stab in the heart of capitalism. In R. Kinna & U. Gordon (Eds.), Routledge handbook of radical politics (pp. 371-390). Routledge.

Shuster, N. (2022). Big-box retail workers, the Great Resignation, and the anti-work movement. DOI:10.33774/apsa-2022-f5cb6

Schmiedel, T., Müller, O., & Vom Brocke, J. (2019). Topic modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational research: A tutorial with an application example on organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 941-968.

Smith, C. & Guillotin, B. (2022). The impact of workers not returning to the job market. Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance, 18(1), 553-560.

Stello, C. M. (2011). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction: An integrative literature review. Unpublished paper presented at the 2011 student research conference: Exploring opportunities in research, policy, and practice, University of Minnesota Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy and Development, Minneapolis, MN.

Sufyan, M. Z., & Maqsood, A. (2010). Role of push vs pull factors in employee job switch decision. JISR Management and Social Sciences & Economics, 8(1), 95-105.

Tekleab, A. G., Bartol, K. M., & Liu, W. (2005). Is it pay levels or pay raises that matter to fairness and turnover? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(8), 899-921.

Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Stafford, K. (2019). Abusive coworker treatment, coworker support, and employee turnover. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(4), 413-423.

Toppinen‐Tanner, S., Kalimo, R., & Mutanen, P. (2002). The process of burnout in white‐collar and blue‐collar jobs: Eight‐year prospective study of exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 555-570.

Torpey, E. (2020, September). Essential work: Employment and outlook in occupations that protect and provide. Career Outlook, US Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2020/article/essential-work.htm

Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. (2009). Python 3 reference manual. CreateSpace.

Weintraub, J., Cassell, D., & DePatie, T. P. (2021). Nudging flow through “SMART” goal setting to decrease stress, increase engagement, and increase performance at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(2), 230-258.

Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2022). Quiet quitting is about bad bosses, not bad employees. Harvard Business Review, 31.

Appendix: Data Collection and Analytical Approach

Data Collection

• Data were collected from the Reddit.com subreddits, r/AskReddit (N=478) and r/ AW (N=301). Reddit comments were accessed using the RedditExtractoR package (Rivera, 2023) for the R computing platform (R Core Team, 2021).
• Searches of Reddit posts were conducted using key terms including “quiet quit” and “AW.”

Analytical Approach

• QQ and AW corpuses of Reddit posts were modeled using the BERTopic library (Grootendorst, 2022) for Python (Van Rossum & Drake, 2009) to group semantically related comments together based on an underlying theme.
• Reddit comments were preprocessed and split into sentences for analysis (Reimers & Gurevych, 2019).
• Reddit comments were embedded using the sentence-transformers library in Python (Reimers & Gurevych, 2019).
• Reddit comment embeddings were reduced using the uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) dimension reduction algorithm using the BERTopic library’s default parameters.
• Reduced Reddit comment embeddings were clustered using hierarchical density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (HDBSCAN; McInnes et al., 2017).
• Reddit comment clusters were examined by three members of the research team to (a) name the topics, (b) code each topic as a motivation or hygiene factor, and (c) code each topic as a motivation or hygiene subfactor.

• Topics that were not related to the nature of the work performed by commenters were coded as “Not Applicable.”

• Topics that were coded as “Not Applicable” were not considered for subsequent analyses.

• After coding topics independently, coders met to discuss each topic and factor coded to come to a consensus on the codes generated.

• The proportionality of motivation and hygiene factors and subfactors between the QQ and AW corpuses were examined using chi-square tests of association and row-wise proportion Z-tests.