Introduction
In recent years, new terms have appeared on the labor market that reflect the changing attitudes of employees towards work, the employer and the organization. The concept of silent resignation became viral in 2022, especially in the digital space, but the phenomenon itself is not new. Since the 1970s and 1980s, professional literature has described similar forms of behavior, primarily within the framework of the theories of work disengagement, reduction of work effort and reduction of engagement (Kanungo, 1982). Modern research links this phenomenon to the dynamics of work involvement, the psychological contract and individual motivational mechanisms (Bolino et al., 2021; Klotz, 2022; Vantilborgh et al., 2016). It is a form of psychological distancing that is closely related to the concepts of work involvement, organizational justice (Greenberg, 1990), a broken psychological contract (Vantilborgh et al., 2016) or long-known manifestations of resistance and passive behavior in the workplace.
A less discussed but equally important phenomenon is "silent loyalty". This phenomenon follows older theoretical concepts such as organizational silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000), continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991) and low psychological safety (Edmondson, 2019; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). The employee remains in the organization and fulfills his duties for a long time, but his initiative, activity and effort to influence the events in the organization or to develop his own competencies disappear (Gallup, 2023).
Both forms of behavior represent risks for employers, organizations and workers themselves, because they signal latent problems in the area of motivation, leadership, organizational culture or working conditions. At the same time, they reveal the limits of traditional motivational approaches, which assume stable employee engagement regardless of the dynamics of the work environment (Bolino et al., 2021).
The aim of the contribution is to provide a professional analysis of both phenomena, to explain their psychological mechanisms and impacts on work functioning, to point out the differences and common features and to suggest the possibilities of interventions by organizations.
Theoretical principles
Silent loyalty does not appear as a separate concept in the professional literature, but it can theoretically be included among the manifestations of continuous commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Although the employee remains in the employment relationship, the reason is not commitment or identification with the organization, but rather low self-confidence, fear of change or a feeling of insufficient employability (Fugate et al., 2004).
Silent resignation is not always defined as a separate concept, but can be understood as a form of passive resistance or reduced work engagement, in which the employee only fulfills the minimum requirements of the employment contract without extraordinary involvement or initiative (Vantilborgh et al., 2016). This phenomenon can theoretically be classified as a manifestation of the violation of the psychological contract or reduced affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The main causes include a feeling of lack of recognition, frustration with the way management is done, low trust in the organization or a perceived imbalance between work and reward.
The common denominator of both phenomena is the violation of the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995), i.e. the subjective expectations of the employee, which are not explicitly regulated in the employment contract. Violation of expectations leads to loss of trust and reduced work engagement. The psychological contract includes the employee's informal expectations of fair treatment, professional development, recognition and support in the workplace. If these expectations are not met, it can lead to emotional tension, frustration and increased sensitivity of employees to organizational changes.
At the same time, the psychological contract develops dynamically depending on the daily interaction between the employee and the superior, on what values and standards the organization actually lives by, as well as on external influences, such as the economic situation or the labor market. These factors change the expectations of both parties and determine whether the psychological contract is in balance or broken.
Positive fulfillment of the psychological contract promotes loyalty, motivation and a willingness to contribute beyond basic tasks. Clear communication of expectations, transparency of decision-making processes and regular feedback are effective tools for preventing the violation of the psychological contract (Vantilborgh et al., 2016).
Psychological mechanisms of silent denunciation and silent loyalty
Silent resignation represents adaptation to working conditions assessed as unsatisfactory or unsustainable. Violation of the psychological contract is related to a decrease in motivation to perform above standard. According to (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), the balance between job demands and available resources is disrupted, which results in exhaustion and subsequent disengagement. This phenomenon is also associated with organizational justice – employees who perceive unfair treatment are less willing to engage, accept new tasks or contribute beyond the scope of their duties (Greenberg, 1990).
Silent loyalty is a less visible but long-term harmful phenomenon. The employee remains in the organization, performs the work reliably, but does not show ambition to grow or improve processes in the organization. He lacks a voice, which Edmondson (2019) refers to as an absence of psychological safety. This phenomenon is often related to continuance commitment, in which employees persist not because they want to, but because they feel a lack of alternatives (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Psychological obstacles, such as low self-esteem or a feeling of helplessness, prevent the active search for better working conditions.
Table no. 1 provides a clear comparison of the key characteristics of silent resignation and silent loyalty, including employees' psychological state, motives, typical behavior, risks to the organization, and the relationship to the psychological contract.
Table No. 1 Comparison of silent resignation and silent loyalty
Author's own processing, 2025
While silent resignation represents an active withdrawal of interest in the job as a response to overload or disappointed expectations, silent loyalty is more likely to mean passive persistence in the job despite dissatisfaction or low self-confidence. With silent resignation, the employee consciously limits his efforts to the bare minimum, while with silent loyalty, he performs tasks reliably, but does not show initiative or grow.
Consequences and impacts on the organization
Silent resignation leads to reduced engagement, minimized effort, and decreased individual and team performance. It generates hidden costs associated with turnover and weakens collective cooperation. This negatively affects productivity and efficiency.
Silent loyalty is manifested by consistent performance of duties, but without initiative and innovative approach. It supports the stagnation of processes and the maintenance of inefficient procedures, which reduces the adaptability of the organization and its ability to respond to dynamic market changes.
The long-term presence of both phenomena can weaken the competitiveness of the organization, reduce the psychological capital of teams and limit innovation potential. The effects are amplified in environments with low psychological safety, weak leadership support, and insufficient motivational mechanisms.
Quiet Termination Prevention and Loyalty Strategies
Effective solutions must be systemic, long-term and integrated into organizational processes. Key factors include:
- Quality of communication – clear expectations and open dialogue between superior and subordinate. Employees need to know what is expected of them, what they can expect from their supervisor, and what the priorities are. Inconsistent communication and unclear boundaries are one of the most common triggers for a silent resignation.
- Transformational leadership – support for employee growth, recognition of effort and meaningfulness of work (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Leadership style has a direct impact on the psychological contract, motivation and loyalty. Transformational leaders foster growth, value effort, and can connect daily tasks with greater meaning.
- Career interviews and feedback – regular alignment of employee expectations with organizational goals. Alignment of expectations is the key to preventing both the feeling of stagnation and the violation of the psychological contract.
- Participatory decision-making – involving employees in creating processes and increasing the feeling of psychological security. Silent loyalty often emerges in environments where employees have lost their voice. Participation increases the feeling of control, involvement and psychological safety.
- Mentoring and mutual mentoring – support of professional growth, a sense of competence and a culture of cooperation (Lorko Praznovská, 2025). Example from practice: A junior social worker teaches a colleague to use new digital tools. At the same time, he gains pknow-how in working with clients from her. It increases trust and interpersonal connection in the workplace.
- Flexible working conditions – flexible working hours, home office, individual adaptation of tasks, supporting the balance between work and private life (Anttila et al., 2015). Flexibility is a powerful tool for preventing burnout or silent resignation.
- Monitoring of organizational culture - systematic monitoring of indicators of latent problems, such as a decline in initiative, lack of innovative proposals or stagnation of processes, through regular internal surveys, anonymous questionnaires and analytical tools to obtain reliable data for targeted interventions.
The goal of these interventions is to create a proactive and engaged work environment that supports the personal development of employees, improves team performance and minimizes the risk of silent resignation or loyalty.
Conclusion
Although silent resignation and silent loyalty have received increased attention, their roots lie in long-researched psychological processes such as work disengagement, passive behavior, and psychological contract breach.
Quiet resignation is manifested by a reduction in work effort and commitment beyond the scope of work duties, while quiet loyalty characterizes the reliable but passive performance of tasks without further initiative. The main motive is not individual incompetence, but a mismatch between the expectations of the employee and the organization, low psychological safety, insufficient feedback and weak participation in decision-making.
Latent risks to the organization include reduced performance, higher turnover, process stagnation and limited adaptability. Early identification and targeted systemic interventions – such as building psychological safety, quality relationships, flexible working conditions, mentoring and participative decision-making – can mitigate negative impacts and promote employee engagement, motivation and initiative.
Developing empirical research on both phenomena is essential for the strategic management of human capital and the development of a culture of trust, justice and participation. Systematic perception and solution of these phenomena makes it possible to transform latent risk into a source of strategic value and competitive advantage of the organization.
Author: PhDr. Daniela Lorko Praznovská The author works as a job vacancy agent at the Office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family and at the same time teaches senior citizens at the University of the Third Age. He has been interested in labor market issues, career counseling and motivation of the unemployed for a long time. He has several years of experience working directly with clients in the field of employment and cooperation with employers. She closely follows the trends of development and changes in the labor market, which enables her to connect theoretical knowledge with practical solutions.
List of bibliographic sources
ANTTILA, T. – OINAS, T. – TAMMELIN, M. – NÄTTI, J. 2015. Working-time regimes and work–life balance in Europe. In European Sociological Review. ISSN 0266-7215, 2015, vol. 31, no. 6, p. 713–724 [online] [cit. 2025-12-06]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv070.
BASS, B. M. – RIGGIO, R. E. 2006. Transformational leadership. Mahwah : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. 384 p. ISBN 0-8058-5853-2.
EDMONDSON, A. C. 2018. The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons, 2018. 240 p. ISBN 978-1-119-47869-6.
EDMONDSON, A. C. – LEI, Z. 2014. Psychological safety: A foundation for speaking up, learning, and innovation. In Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. ISSN 2327-0025, 2014, vol. 1, p. 23–43 [online] [cit. 2025-12-06]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305.
FUGATE, M. – KINICKI, A. J. – ASHFORTH, B. E. 2004. Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. In Journal of Vocational Behavior. ISSN 0001-8791, 2004, vol. 65, no. 1, p. 14–38 [online] [cit. 2025-12-06]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005.
GALLUP. 2023. State of the Global Workplace Report [online]. Washington : Gallup, 2023 [cit. 2025-12-06]. Available online: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx.
GREENBERG, J. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In Journal of Management. ISSN 0149-2063, 1990, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 399–432 [online] [cit. 2025-12-06]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208.
KANUNGO, R. N. 1982. Measurement of job and work involvement. In Journal of Applied Psychology. ISSN 0021-9010, 1982, vol. 67, no. 3, p. 341–349 [online] [cit. 2025-12-06]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341.
LORKO PRAZNOVSKÁ, D. 2025. Two-way mentoring as a tool for employee development and support for commitment and burnout. In VANSAČ, P. – SEMANOVÁ, M. (eds.). Proceedings from XII. of the international scientific conference: Intergenerational relations in the context of social work and health sciences - theory and practice. Michalovce : Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu VIZJA Warszawa, 2025, p. 217–236. ISBN 978-83-61087-02-1.
MEYER, J.P. – ALLEN, N.J. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. In Human Resource Management Review. ISSN 1053-4822, 1991, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 61–89 [online] [cit. 2025-12-05]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z.
MORRISON, E.W. – MILLIKEN, F.J. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. In Academy of Management Review. ISSN 0363-7425, 2000, vol. 25, no. 4, p. 706–725 [online] [cit. 2025-12-10]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707697.
ROUSSEAU, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications, 1995. 242 p. ISBN 978-0-8039-7105-9.
SCHAUFELI, W. B. – BAKKER, A. B. 2004. Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. In Journal of Organizational Behavior. ISSN 0894-3796, 2004, vol. 25, no. 3, p. 293–315 [online] [cit. 2025-12-11]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248.
VANTILBORGH, T. – BIDEE, J. – PEPEMANS, R. – GRIEP, Y. – HOFMANS, J. 2016. Antecedents of psychological contract breach: The role of job demands, job resources, and affect. In PLOS ONE. ISSN 1932-6203, 2016, vol. 11, no. 5 [online] [cit. 2025-12-13]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154696.