International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 13, Issue 6 (June 2026), Pages: 11-22

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Investigation of factors influencing quiet quitting intention among the Gen Z workforce: Empirical evidence from the marketing sector in Ho Chi Minh City

 Author(s): 

Nhan Truong Thanh Dang 1, Van Dung Ha 2, *

 Affiliation(s):

1Faculty of Business Administration, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2Faculty of International Economics, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5627-3261

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.06.002

 Abstract

Quiet quitting refers to a phenomenon in which employees remain in their jobs but intentionally reduce their level of commitment and perform only the minimum tasks required, without going beyond their basic responsibilities. Recently, quiet quitting has become a significant workplace issue, particularly among Generation Z (Gen Z), who represent a major part of the current workforce and are highly influenced by social networking platforms. This study applied Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Job Demands–Resources Model (JD–R) to develop a research model examining the factors influencing quiet quitting intention. Data were collected from 208 Gen Z employees working in the marketing sector in Ho Chi Minh City and analyzed using SPSS 20.0. The findings indicate that five factors—burnout, work–life imbalance, lack of recognition, lack of autonomy, and an unsupportive organizational culture—have a positive effect on quiet quitting intention among Gen Z employees. Among these factors, lack of recognition was found to have the strongest influence. Based on these findings, the study provides practical managerial implications for developing employee retention strategies that better align with the needs and expectations of Gen Z employees in the marketing sector.

 © 2026 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

Quiet quitting, Generation Z employees, Employee burnout, Work–life imbalance, Organizational culture

 Article history

Received 17 December 2025, Received in revised form 7 May 2026, Accepted 28 May 2026

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study was conducted in compliance with ethical standards for research involving human participants. All respondents provided informed consent prior to participation. Data were collected anonymously and used solely for academic research purposes. No personally identifiable information was retained. 

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

Dang NTT and Ha VD (2026). Investigation of factors influencing quiet quitting intention among the Gen Z workforce: Empirical evidence from the marketing sector in Ho Chi Minh City. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(6): 11-22

  Permanent Link to this page

---------------------------------------------- 

 References (46)

  1. Bakker AB and Demerouti E (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3): 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115   [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakker AB, van Veldhoven M, and Xanthopoulou D (2010). Beyond the demand-control model. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(1): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000006   [Google Scholar]
  3. Blau G (1999). Testing the longitudinal impact of work variables and performance appraisal satisfaction on subsequent overall job satisfaction. Human Relations, 52: 1099-1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679905200806   [Google Scholar]
  4. Busetto L, Wick W, and Gumbinger C (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice, 2: 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z   [Google Scholar] PMid:33324920 PMCid:PMC7650082
  5. Cannon M (2015). Employee recognition: Understanding the construct, its measurement and its relationship to employee outcomes. PhD Dissertation, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Canada.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Corbin TA and Flenady G (2024). Quiet quitting as compensatory respect: Meaningful work, recognition, and the entrepreneurial ethic. Philosophy of Management, 23: 461-480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-024-00320-4   [Google Scholar]
  7. Cristobal E, Flavian C, and Guinaliu M (2007). Perceived e‐service quality (PeSQ) measurement validation and effects on consumer satisfaction and web site loyalty. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(3): 317-340. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520710744326   [Google Scholar]
  8. Cropanzano R and Mitchell MS (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6): 874-900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602   [Google Scholar]
  9. Deci EL, Olafsen AH, and Ryan RM (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4: 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108   [Google Scholar]
  10. Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, and Sowa D (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3): 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.71.3.500   [Google Scholar]
  11. Fathulaela D, Nuraulia A, and Sunimah S (2025). The effect of burnout management and work-life balance on quiet quitting in hospitals XYZ. Indonesian Interdisciplinary Journal of Sharia Economics (IIJSE), 8(2): 7228-7243.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Galanis P, Katsiroumpa A, Vraka I, Siskou O, Konstantakopoulou O, Moisoglou I, Gallos P, and 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   [Google Scholar] PMid:38187899 PMCid:PMC10764970
  13. Gragnano A, Simbula S, and Miglioretti M (2020). Work–life balance: Weighing the importance of work–family and work–health balance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3): 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030907   [Google Scholar] PMid:32024155 PMCid:PMC7037206
  14. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, and Anderson RE (2010). Multivariate data analysis. 7th Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Hamouche S, Koritos C, and Papastathopoulos A (2023). Quiet quitting: Relationship with other concepts and implications for tourism and hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(12): 4297-4312. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2022-1362   [Google Scholar]
  16. Hayman J (2005). Psychometric assessment of an instrument designed to measure work life balance. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 13(1): 85-91.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Kahn WA (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 692-724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287   [Google Scholar] PMid:23843868
  18. Karadas A and Çevik C (2025). Psychometric analysis of the quiet quitting and quiet firing scale among Turkish healthcare professionals. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 31(2): e14136. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14136   [Google Scholar] PMid:39279539 PMCid:PMC11938806
  19. Karatepe OM and Karadas G (2015). Do psychological capital and work engagement foster frontline employees’ satisfaction? A study in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6): 1254-1278. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0028   [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim KT and Sohn YW (2024). The impact of quiet quitting on turnover intentions in the era of digital transformation: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and affective commitment, and the moderating role of psychological safety. Systems, 12(11): 460. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12110460   [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim SY and Fernandez S (2017). Employee empowerment and turnover intention in the US federal bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1): 4-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015583712   [Google Scholar]
  22. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, and Christensen KB (2005). The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress, 19(3): 192-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720   [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuvaas B (2006). Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: The roles of pay administration and pay level. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(3): 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.377   [Google Scholar]
  24. Leonardi PM and Treem JW (2012). Knowledge management technology as a stage for strategic self-presentation: Implications for knowledge sharing in organizations. Information and Organization, 22(1): 37-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2011.10.003   [Google Scholar]
  25. Lestari V (2023). Strategic approaches to marketing management in contemporary business environments. Advances: Jurnal Ekonomi & Bisnis, 1(5): 255-268. https://doi.org/10.60079/ajeb.v1i5.210   [Google Scholar]
  26. Mahand T and Caldwell C (2023). Quiet quitting–causes and opportunities. Business and Management Research, 12(1): 9-19. https://doi.org/10.5430/bmr.v12n1p9   [Google Scholar]
  27. Morgeson FP and Humphrey SE (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1321-1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321   [Google Scholar] PMid:17100487
  28. Nguyen HT and Vu MH (2025). Quiet quitting: Insights from Generation Z workers in Vietnam. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM), 13(1): 8267-8282. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v13i01.em08   [Google Scholar]
  29. Pütz L (2025). Job-related antecedents of psychological detachment from work. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 36(9): 1493-1528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2025.2516791   [Google Scholar]
  30. Rai GS (2013). Impact of organizational justice on satisfaction, commitment and turnover intention: Can fair treatment by organizations make a difference in their workers’ attitudes and behaviors? Journal of Human Sciences, 10(2): 260-284.  [Google Scholar]
  31. Ryan RM and Deci EL (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806   [Google Scholar] PMCid:PMC10587661
  32. Schneider B, Ehrhart MG, and Macey WH (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1): 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809   [Google Scholar] PMid:22856467
  33. Serenko A (2024). The human capital management perspective on quiet quitting: Recommendations for employees, managers, and national policymakers. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(1): 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2022-0792   [Google Scholar]
  34. Smith DB and Ellingson JE (2002). Substance versus style: A new look at social desirability in motivating contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.211   [Google Scholar] PMid:12002950
  35. Srivastava S and Saxena A (2025). Deciphering how workplace hazing evokes quiet quitting among Gen Z employees in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 8(9): 3359-3378. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-10-2024-1133   [Google Scholar]
  36. Tabachnick BG and Fidell LS (2019). Using multivariate statistics. 7th Edition, Pearson, Boston, USA.  [Google Scholar]
  37. Tiffin PA, Cabrera R, Dexter-Smith S, and Van den Broeck A (2024). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Further examining and validating an English language version of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 15: 1304309. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1304309   [Google Scholar] PMid:39492817 PMCid:PMC11528707
  38. Toska A, Dimitriadou I, Togas C, Nikolopoulou E, Fradelos EC, Papathanasiou IV, Sarafis P, Malliarou M, and Saridi M (2025). Quiet quitting in the hospital context: Investigating conflicts, organizational support, and professional engagement in Greece. Nursing Reports, 15(2): 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15020038   [Google Scholar] PMid:39997774 PMCid:PMC11858196
  39. Veren K, Callista I, Aprillia A, Setradihardja LI, and Prima IR (2025). An overview of quiet quitting among Millennial and Gen Z employees. Psikologi Prima, 8(1): 61-76. https://doi.org/10.55942/pssj.v6i1.1012   [Google Scholar]
  40. von Hippel C, Brener L, Rose G, and von Hippel W (2019). Perceived inability to help is associated with client‐related burnout and negative work outcomes among community mental health workers. Health & Social Care in the Community, 27(6): 1507-1514. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12821   [Google Scholar] PMid:31368620
  41. Wallace E and Coughlan J (2023). Burnout and counterproductive workplace behaviours among frontline hospitality employees: The effect of perceived contract precarity. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(2): 451-468. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2022-0195   [Google Scholar]
  42. Wayne SJ, Shore LM, and Liden RC (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 82-111. https://doi.org/10.2307/257021   [Google Scholar] PMid:23939000
  43. Wu A and Wei W (2024). Rationalizing quiet quitting? Deciphering the internal mechanism of front-line hospitality employees’ workplace deviance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 119: 103681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103681   [Google Scholar]
  44. Xueyun Z, Al Mamun A, Masukujjaman M, Rahman MK, Gao J, and Yang Q (2023). Modelling the significance of organizational conditions on quiet quitting intention among Gen Z workforce in an emerging economy. Scientific Reports, 13: 15438. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42591-3   [Google Scholar] PMid:37723179 PMCid:PMC10507021
  45. Xueyun Z, Yang Q, and Al Mamun A (2024). Predicting the quiet quitting intention among the Generation Z workforce in hotel industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2024.2393336   [Google Scholar]
  46. Ye L, Li Y, and Zhang N (2025). The impact of autonomy-supportive organizational environments on employees’ emotions and creative performance: A self-determination theory perspective. PLOS ONE, 20(5): e0322184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322184   [Google Scholar] PMid:40440274 PMCid:PMC12121785