Same Herd, Different Directions: Personality-Based Quiet Disengagement

Baltas Group

A short documentary scene that has recently become popular etched itself into memory with an unexpected walk. A penguin broke away from the rhythm of the colony and moved towards the glaciers with slow but determined steps. Some interpreted the scene as “nihilistic”, others as a “quest for freedom”. Yet what was truly striking about that walk was not so much where the penguin was going as what it was breaking away from. The colony was still there: those walking together, looking in the same direction, moving at the same pace… But for that penguin, there was now an invisible mismatch between the direction of the colony and its own inner compass.

Disengagement in working life often begins in the same way. Employees do not suddenly decide to resign one morning; like that penguin, they first lose their direction inwardly. Even if the organisation’s goals, strategic direction and division of roles remain clear, this order in the system may not resonate in the same way in the employee’s inner world. As with a glacier, the break begins with a dissolution that goes unnoticed on the surface but advances in the depths. This dissolution appears as the weakening of the bond the employee has with their work.

From engagement to disengagement

The mental, emotional and behavioural bond an employee forms with their work is examined in terms of how much meaning they attach to their work, how much they invest emotionally and how much energy they put in.^1,2 When this multidimensional bond with work is strong, not only performance but also attitudes towards the organisation, the sense of belonging and the intention to stay are strengthened. Conversely, when the bond weakens, the employee begins to withdraw.^2,3 Disengagement is usually invisible; it is quiet and not noticed early.

In recent years, this silent disengagement has been called “quiet quitting”. Quiet quitting is defined as an employee refusing to go beyond their job description, withdrawing discretionary effort and doing only the bare minimum.^4,5 The employee is still within the herd: they attend meetings, do their tasks and are part of the system. The walk continues despite the disengagement happening inside, just as the penguin moves away mentally without losing physical contact with the colony. Explaining this disengagement solely by workload or external conditions is not enough.

Indeed, while increasing job demands are more often associated with burnout,^6,7 the factors that determine an employee’s bond with work are not limited to environmental factors. Alongside job resources, the individual’s internal resources, especially personality traits, are among the strongest predictors of the bond formed with work.³

The relationship between work engagement and personality

The fit between personality traits and the demands and structure of the job has a significant and direct effect on overall work engagement. When person–job fit is not achieved, a marked decline in psychological engagement can occur even if the employee physically remains in the job. This explains why, under the same working conditions, some employees can form a strong bond with their work while others quietly withdraw.⁸

In other words, personality traits act as a perceptual filter that shapes not only the employee’s behaviour but also the way they make sense of their working experience.⁹ These individual differences lay the groundwork for employees to invest psychologically in their work at different levels and in different ways under the same organisational conditions. Indeed, while some employees experience work as a space of meaning and belonging,¹ others may form a more limited bond under the same conditions or develop distance over time. For some, this can become the starting point of quiet disengagement.¹⁰

Trait-based tendencies in the multidimensional structure of work engagement

Not every penguin bonds with the colony for the same reason, and not every employee connects with the organisation from the same place. Personality traits are like an important inner compass that predicts which dimension this bond is more likely to be built on. Conscientiousness in particular is seen as a prominent individual resource in explaining the sustainability of a person’s bond with their work,^3,11,12 because this personality dimension is strongly related to cognitive engagement in particular.^11,13 Individuals high in conscientiousness appear more inclined to take mental ownership of their work, focus on goals and see their tasks as part of a meaningful whole.¹⁴ This tendency can make it easier to build cognitive engagement.

Extraversion, on the other hand, is related more to the emotional and physical dimensions of the bond with work.¹³ A high energy level and a tendency to be energised by social interaction mean that these individuals are more motivated and participate more actively in jobs that involve interaction, movement and sharing.^3,11 For this reason, extraverted employees connect especially with the “doing” part of the job; they take action and prefer to be in the field.

Low emotional stability is one of the most fragile grounds for disengagement. In individuals with low emotional stability, the emotional dimension of the bond with work in particular is damaged more quickly.¹³ Research shows that this personality trait is positively associated with burnout, emotional withdrawal and quiet quitting behaviours.^1,15 Even while within the herd, these employees can quickly withdraw their bond when they do not feel psychologically safe.

The other personality dimensions, agreeableness and openness, show more selective and context-sensitive relationships. Some studies reveal that these traits do not show strong and consistent relationships with overall engagement but can play meaningful roles in certain types of engagement, especially cognitive engagement.³ This shows that engagement is not a uniform psychological process but is shaped from different directions together with personality.

Conclusion

The bond with work is a multidimensional experience with cognitive, emotional and physical dimensions.¹ The penguin’s walk therefore reminds us that engagement is not built from the same place in everyone. Personality traits make it possible to predict where an employee’s bond with their work will be nourished from: for some it is a mental search for meaning, for others an emotional connection, and for others the energy they are able to put in. As this bond weakens, disengagement becomes increasingly visible. Understanding disengagement therefore requires understanding not only the conditions but also the personality that comes into contact with those conditions.

The psychological foundations of personality traits are at the centre of people-focused strategies in increasingly digital ways of working. Digital applications used in HR processes in particular are reshaping employee experience, collaboration and decision-making mechanisms.

Sources:

1. Kahn WA. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad Manage J. 1990;33(4):692–724.
2. Bakker AB, Tims M, Derks D. Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Hum Relat. 2012; 65:1359–1378.
3. Janssens H, De Zutter P, Geens T, Vogt G, Braeckman L. Do personality traits determine work engagement? Results from a Belgian study. J Occup Environ Med. 2019;61(1).
4. Formica S, Sfodera F. The great resignation and quiet quitting paradigm shifts: An overview of current situation and future research directions. J Hosp Mark Manag. 2022;31(8):899–907.
5. Mahand T, Caldwell C. Quiet quitting – causes and opportunities. Bus Manag Res. 2023;12(1):9. doi:10.5430/bmr.v12n1p9
6. Bakker A, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007; 22:309–328.
7. Lee RT, Ashforth BE. A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. J Appl Psychol. 1996; 81:123–133.
8. Christiansen N, Sliter M, Frost CT. What employees dislike about their jobs: Relationship between personality-based fit and work satisfaction. Pers Individ Dif. 2014; 71:25–29.
9. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York (NY): Springer Publishing; 1984.
10. Wicker SA. Quiet quitting, engagement, & personality [master’s thesis]. Middle Tennessee State University; 2024 Aug.
11. Kim HJ, Shin KH, Swanger N. Burnout and engagement: A comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. Int J Hosp Manag. 2009;28(1):96–104.
12. Audet É, Levine S, Dubois P, Koestner S, Koestner R. The unanticipated virtual year: How the Big 5 personality traits of openness to experience and conscientiousness impacted engagement in online classes during the COVID-19 crisis. J Coll Read Learn. 2023;53(4):298–315.
13. Tussey KN. Relationships between Big Five personality traits and three dimensions of employee engagement [doctoral dissertation]. Franklin University; 2023 Jul.
14. Memon MA, Salleh R, Baharom MNR, Harun H. Person-organization fit and turnover intention: The mediating role of employee engagement. Glob Bus Manag Res. 2014;6(3):205–209.
15. Angelini G. Big five model personality traits and job burnout: A systematic literature review. BMC Psychol. 2023;11(1):49–83. doi:10.1186/s40359-023-01056-y