The Role Of Employee Engagement In Mediating The Effects Of Meaningful Work, Hindrance Stressors, And Work-Life Balance On Quiet Quitting Among Generation Z Employees In Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35870/jemsi.v12i4.6700Keywords:
Quiet Quitting, Employee Engagement, Meaningful Work, Work-Life Balance, Generation Z, IndonesiaAbstract
Quiet quitting has become a major issue in human resource management, changing how Generation Z employees view loyalty. This study looks at whether employee engagement connects meaningful work, hindrance stressors, and work-life balance to quiet quitting among Generation Z workers in Indonesia. Using a quantitative survey, we collected data from Generation Z employees and analyzed it with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM-PLS). The results show some unexpected patterns. Employee engagement did not act as a link, suggesting that enthusiasm for work and the choice to limit workload are not always connected. Only meaningful work was found to reduce quiet quitting, while hindrance stressors had no effect. Another surprising finding was that work-life balance actually increased quiet quitting, suggesting that some employees use withdrawal as a way to achieve balance. Based on these results, organizations should focus less on emotional retention and more on creating meaningful work and clear work boundaries, since high engagement alone does not prevent quiet quitting.
Downloads
References
Afota, M. C., Robert, V., & Vandenberghe, C. (2024). Workaholism, work engagement, and affective commitment: Relationships to self-concept levels and work outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 15(January). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1434482.
Agarwal, P., Kaur, P., & Budhwar, P. (2024). Silencing quiet quitting: Crafting a high-performance work system and psychological conditions. In WILEY. Journal of Human Resource Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22275.
Alami, R., Stachowicz-Stanusch, A., Agarwal, S., & Masaeid, T. Al. (2024). Predicting quiet quitting: Machine learning insights into silent resignations in healthcare industry. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i4.3864.
Arquisola, M. J., Liswandi, L., Hutabarat, E., & Fauzi, F. C. (2022). Indonesian professionals’ perspectives on flexible working arrangements as an alternative employment option post-Covid 19 recovery. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 10(8), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i8.1495.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2024). Job demands–resources theory: Frequently asked questions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 29(3), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000376.
Bellini, F., & Lomazzi, V. (2024). Changing work values: Beyond hustle culture. Sociologia (Slovakia), 56(6), 555–580. https://doi.org/10.31577/sociologia.2024.56.6.20.
Campton, J., Tham, A., & Ting, H. (2023). Quiet quitting – implications for Asian businesses. Asian Journal of Business Research, 13(2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.14707/ajbr.230153.
Corbin, T. A., & Flenady, G. (2024). Quiet quitting as compensatory respect: Meaningful work, recognition, and the entrepreneurial ethic. Philosophy of Management, 23(4), 461–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-024-00320-4.
Costantini, A., Scharp, Y. S., Avanzi, L., van Iperen, L. P., & Vignoli, M. (2025). The bright and dark side of playful work design: Navigating work engagement and workaholism. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-025-10091-y.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
Egerová, D., Komárková, L., & Kutlák, J. (2021). Generation Y and Generation Z employment expectations: A generational cohort comparative. Business Administration and Management, 24(3), 93–109.
Galanis, P., Katsiroumpa, A., Vraka, I., Siskou, O., Konstantakopoulou, O., Moisoglou, I., Gallos, P., & Kaitelidou, D. (2023). The quiet quitting scale: Development and initial validation. AIMS Public Health, 10(4), 828–848. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2023055.
Galanis, P., Katsiroumpa, A., Vraka, I., Siskou, O., Konstantakopoulou, O., Moisoglou, I., Gallos, P., & Kaitelidou, D. (2024). Quiet quitting among employees: A proposed cut-off score for the “Quiet Quitting” Scale. Archives of Hellenic Medicine, 41(3), 381–387.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). The results of PLS-SEM article information. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
Hendratmoko, & Mutiarawati, E. V. (2024). The significant impact of workplace environment on Gen Z performance in Indonesia. Jurnal Manajemen, 13(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.46806/jm.v13i1.1096.
Johnson, J. R. (2023). What’s new about quiet quitting (and what’s not). The Transdisciplinary Journal of Management, 1–14.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological condition of personal engagement and disengagement. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Work–life balance: A review of the meaning of the balance construct. Journal of Management and Organization, 14(3), 323–327. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.837.14.3.323.
Kuancintami, A., & Heryjanto, A. (2023). Increase employee retention impact work–life balance, meaningful work, and job satisfaction towards turnover intention. Journal of Indonesian Social Science, 4.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803921.
Michel, J. S., Rotch, M. A., & O’Neill, S. K. (2022). The effects of work and nonwork boundary fit on role satisfaction and subjective well-being. Stress and Health, 38(1), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3070.
Na-Nan, K., Pukkeeree, P., & Chaiprasit, K. (2020). Employee engagement in small and medium-sized enterprises in Thailand: The construction and validation of a scale to measure employees. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 37(9–10), 1325–1343. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-10-2018-0290.
Nguyen, C. N., Tho, A., & Nguyen, T. B. (2023). Understanding generation Z’s job engagement and performance in a generationally diverse workplace. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science - Economics and Business Administration, 14(2), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.46223/hcmcoujs.econ.en.14.2.2633.2024.
Osorio, M. L., & Madero, S. (2025). Explaining Gen Z’s desire for hybrid work in corporate, family, and entrepreneurial settings. Business Horizons, 68(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.02.008.
Podsakoff, N. P., Lepine, J. A., & Lepine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor–hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438.
Pratiwi, P. E., Stanislaus, S., & Pratiwi, P. C. (2023). The tendency of quiet quitting workers in terms of engagement and well-being at work. Philanthropy: Journal of Psychology, 7(2), 132. https://doi.org/10.26623/philanthropy.v7i2.7905.
Ragin-Skorceka, K., & Falfer, R. (2024). Values and expectations of Generation Z. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization and Management Series, 2024(201), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2024.201.22.
Ramadhi, F., E., Ortega, D., Yunas, B., Relifra, & Lestari, D. A. (2024). Unpacking the quiet quitting phenomenon: The role of work stress in workload and work–life balance. Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), 6(3), 627–642. https://doi.org/10.20414/jed.v6i3.11643.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30(C), 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001.
Saraswati, F., & Indiyati, D. (2022). The influence of non-physical work environment and work stress on job performance of Gen Z: A research framework. Sustainable Future: Trends, Strategies and Development, 218–222. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003335832-55.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471.
Serenko, A. (2024). The human capital management perspective on quiet quitting: Recommendations for employees, managers, and policymakers. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2022-0792.
Sitorus, M. G., & Rachmawati, R. (2024). Analysis of the quiet quitting phenomenon with work engagement and job satisfaction as mediators: Study of employees in Indonesia banking industry. Eduvest - Journal of Universal Studies, 4(11), 10671–10793. https://doi.org/10.59188/eduvest.v4i11.44765.
Smeltzer, S. C., Cantrell, M. A., Sharts-Hopko, N. C., Heverly, M. A., Jenkinson, A., & Nthenge, S. (2016). Psychometric analysis of the work/life balance self-assessment scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 24(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.24.1.5.
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160.
Taufik, N., Rosyadi, A., & Aliyuddin, M. (2024). Why millennials and Gen Z are silently leaving their jobs? Unraveling the ‘quiet quitting’ trend. Asian Management and Business Review, 4(2), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.20885/ambr.vol4.iss2.art7.
Taufik, N., Rosyadi, A., Aliyuddin, M., Johnson, J. R., Alanoğlu, M., Karabatak, S., Uslukaya, A., Kuloğlu, A., Harter, J., Harris, L. C., Paranamana, G. K., Kaluarachchige, I. P., Thu Trang, P., Thi Thu Trang, N., Zhang, T., Rodrigue, C., Gonsiorowska, M., Zięba, M., Mahand, T., & Pevec, N. (2023). Quiet quitting and its link with knowledge risks in organizations – Theoretical insights. Izzivi Prihodnosti, 11(1), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.37886/ip.2023.006.
Van De Voorde, K., Veld, M., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2016). Connecting empowerment-focused HRM and labour productivity to work engagement: The mediating role of job demands and resources. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(2), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12099.
Wahyudi, C. G., & Sanyata, S. (2020). Getting to know the characteristics of the Z-generation career options as the industrial revolution activator 4.0 in Indonesia. 462(Isgc 2019), 258–259. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200814.056.
Wandycz-Mejias, J., Roldán, J. L., & Lopez-Cabrales, A. (2025). Analyzing the impact of work meaningfulness on turnover intentions and job satisfaction: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Management and Organization, 31(1), 384–407. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.42.
Wiradendi Wolor, C., Datu Eranza, D. R., Rababah, M. A., & Nurkhin, A. (2023). Relationship of work-family conflict, work–life imbalance, and work-related stress with employee performance of married women in Indonesia: A cross-sectional study. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, 29(3), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.32598/ijpcp.29.3.4713.1.
Xueyun, Z., Al Mamun, A., Masukujjaman, M., Rahman, M. K., Gao, J., & Yang, Q. (2023). Modelling the significance of organizational conditions on quiet quitting intention among Gen Z workforce in an emerging economy. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42591-3.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Zuliandra Adelia Putri, Barkah Barkah, Rizani Ramadhan, Arman Jaya, Hassanudin Hassanudin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Copyright Retention and Open Access License
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal non-exclusive right of first publication under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license allows unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2. Rights Granted Under CC BY 4.0
Under this license, readers are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use
- No additional restrictions — the licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as license terms are followed
3. Attribution Requirements
All uses must include:
- Proper citation of the original work
- Link to the Creative Commons license
- Indication if changes were made to the original work
- No suggestion that the licensor endorses the user or their use
4. Additional Distribution Rights
Authors may:
- Deposit the published version in institutional repositories
- Share through academic social networks
- Include in books, monographs, or other publications
- Post on personal or institutional websites
Requirement: All additional distributions must maintain the CC BY 4.0 license and proper attribution.
5. Self-Archiving and Pre-Print Sharing
Authors are encouraged to:
- Share pre-prints and post-prints online
- Deposit in subject-specific repositories (e.g., arXiv, bioRxiv)
- Engage in scholarly communication throughout the publication process
6. Open Access Commitment
This journal provides immediate open access to all content, supporting the global exchange of knowledge without financial, legal, or technical barriers.
