When you notice ‘quiet quitting’ in your business, what you’re really seeing is a clear signal of employee disengagement. For an employer in the Netherlands, this is a critical moment to initiate open, legally sound conversations focused on observable behaviour, not assumptions.
The primary goal is not to confront, but to understand the root cause. Is it a symptom of burnout? A lack of recognition? Or are the role’s expectations misaligned with the employee’s? Addressing the underlying issue and building a collaborative path forward is more than good management—it’s a fundamental part of your duty of care under Dutch employment law.
Understanding Quiet Quitting in the Dutch Context
In the context of Dutch employment law, ‘quiet quitting’ means an employee has decided to perform exactly what is required by their employment contract—and nothing more. While they continue to fulfil their core duties, the proactive engagement, discretionary effort, and initiative that you may have previously seen have disappeared.
This shift can be subtle, posing a significant challenge for management and HR. It does not constitute insubordination or clear underperformance. Instead, it manifests in small but consistent behavioural changes.
The Subtle Signs of Disengagement
An effective employer response begins with identifying these early warning signs, which are almost always behavioural.
You might observe changes such as:
- Strict adherence to hours: The employee logs off precisely at the end of their scheduled workday, regardless of project status.
- Lack of initiative: They no longer volunteer for new tasks, contribute ideas in meetings, or participate in non-mandatory company activities.
- Minimalist communication: Correspondence becomes brief and purely functional, losing a previously collaborative tone.
- Apparent apathy: There is a visible detachment from the team’s objectives or the company’s broader mission.
It is crucial to distinguish this behaviour from an employee maintaining a healthy work-life balance. The key differentiator is the withdrawal from engagement, not merely the setting of professional boundaries.
This disengagement is often a symptom of deeper issues and can be a precursor to an employee’s resignation. For instance, the job switching rate in the Netherlands increased to 20% in 2022, with approximately 1.5 million Dutch workers changing jobs. This trend is closely linked to the ‘quiet quitting’ phenomenon, where disengagement is the first step toward seeking new employment.
From a legal perspective, a ‘quiet quitter’ is not technically in breach of their contract. They are fulfilling their contractual obligations, which makes any disciplinary action legally perilous. Your focus must be on diagnosing and resolving the root cause, not punishing the symptom.
Furthermore, it is essential to differentiate disengagement from potential medical issues. Understanding the thin line between a sick employee and a quiet quitter in Dutch employment law is vital. A correct response not only protects productivity but also reinforces your legal position as a ‘good employer’ (goed werkgeverschap).
Identifying the Real Reasons for Disengagement
Before formulating a response, you must investigate the underlying causes. An employee’s disengagement is nearly always a symptom of a deeper problem. Assuming laziness or a poor attitude is a costly mistake. Often, the cause lies within the work environment you have provided.
The most critical first step is internal analysis. Does your company offer a clear path for professional growth? Does the employee feel their contributions are recognised and valued? Sometimes, the issue is a simple misalignment between the job’s reality and the employee’s expectations or personal values.
Common Drivers of Disengagement
Disengagement is a reaction, not a random occurrence. Several common workplace factors can lead a motivated employee to limit their efforts to the bare minimum.
Consider these common scenarios:
- The Overlooked High Performer: An employee consistently delivers excellent work but receives no recognition or discussion about their future. Seeing others promoted while their own contributions go unnoticed, they conclude that extra effort is futile and cease offering it.
- The Ambiguous Role: A team member is assigned vague responsibilities and receives conflicting priorities from different managers. Frustrated by the lack of clarity, they retreat to performing only explicitly assigned tasks to avoid further confusion.
- The Expat Experience: An international employee feels culturally isolated, struggling to connect with colleagues or navigate unspoken Dutch workplace norms. Without adequate support, they may withdraw socially and professionally, sticking strictly to their tasks as a defence mechanism.
These situations illustrate that the problem rarely lies with the employee alone. It is often a breakdown in management, communication, or company culture.
Uncovering the Truth with Candid Feedback
To resolve these issues, you must create secure channels for honest feedback. While one-on-one meetings are a start, many employees may hesitate to be fully candid due to fear of repercussions.
An effective employer response to quiet quitting depends on an accurate diagnosis of the root cause. Anonymous feedback mechanisms are invaluable for uncovering systemic issues such as poor management, lack of recognition, or cultural friction that employees may be reluctant to discuss directly.
To understand why employees might be disengaging, you need a method for gathering candid input. Exploring resources on how to create anonymous surveys for honest feedback can provide the tools necessary for collecting unfiltered insights.
This data helps shift the focus from an individual ‘problem employee’ to systemic improvements in the work environment—a far more sustainable solution. Once you understand the ‘why’ behind the disengagement, you can develop a targeted, effective, and legally defensible strategy.
Crafting a Legally Sound and Practical Response
Once you suspect an employee is disengaging, your subsequent actions are critical. A reactive response can escalate the situation and expose your organisation to significant legal risk. The key is to build a quiet quitting employer response that is both constructive for the employee and legally defensible under Dutch law.
This approach is guided by the principle of ‘good employership’ (goed werkgeverschap). In practice, this requires shifting your focus from assumptions about an employee’s attitude to concrete, observable behaviours. You are not confronting them for “quietly quitting”; you are initiating a dialogue about a noticeable decline in proactive contributions or detachment from team goals.
Initiating a Constructive Conversation
The initial conversation sets the tone for all subsequent interactions. Avoid accusatory language. Your objective is to express genuine concern and a desire to understand the situation, thereby creating a safe space for an honest discussion.
Consider opening with statements like:
- “I’ve noticed you seem less engaged in our team meetings lately. I wanted to check in to see if everything is alright.”
- “You have always been a great source of ideas, but I haven’t heard as much from you recently. I wanted to see how you are feeling about your role.”
- “Let’s discuss your current workload. I want to ensure you feel supported and that your responsibilities still align with your career goals.”
This approach is not just effective management; it is a vital part of fulfilling your legal duty of care and understanding your employers’ rights and obligations under Dutch law.
To bridge the gap between subtle signs and concrete issues, it is helpful to distinguish between observations and actionable performance matters.
Early Warning Signs vs Actionable Performance Issues
| Quiet Quitting Indicator (Observe) | Potential Root Cause (Investigate) | Actionable Performance Issue (Document) |
|---|---|---|
| Doing the bare minimum; no longer volunteering. | Burnout, lack of recognition, misalignment with role. | Consistently missing deadlines or failing to complete assigned tasks. |
| Reduced participation in meetings or team chats. | Feeling unheard, interpersonal conflicts, personal issues. | Not providing required input on collaborative projects. |
| Seems isolated or withdrawn from team social life. | Lack of belonging, workplace stress, changes in personal life. | Unprofessional communication or refusal to collaborate with colleagues. |
| No longer asks for feedback or new challenges. | Stagnation, lack of career path, feeling undervalued. | Failure to meet clearly defined performance metrics (e.g., sales targets). |
This table helps frame the problem correctly. The left column provides conversation starters, while the right column contains the type of documented evidence required for any formal process.
Reframing the Performance Improvement Plan
If informal conversations do not lead to change and the disengagement begins to affect performance, a more formal step may be necessary. However, a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) should never be used as the first step towards termination.
Instead, frame it as a collaborative tool for professional development. Under Dutch law, a properly structured PIP is not a punitive measure but a documented, mutual commitment to improving the situation.
A legally sound PIP should be viewed as a rehabilitation plan, not a disciplinary measure. It must contain specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals that give the employee a genuine opportunity to succeed. This collaborative approach strengthens your legal position significantly if the relationship ultimately fails.
The plan must clearly document:
- Observable Issues: Detail specific examples of underperformance, avoiding subjective judgments about “attitude.”
- Clear Goals: Define what successful performance looks like with concrete, measurable targets.
- Support Offered: Outline the specific training, resources, or coaching you will provide.
- Timeline and Check-ins: Set a reasonable timeframe (typically several weeks to a few months) with regular meetings to review progress.
By documenting a clear path forward, you provide the employee with a fair opportunity to improve. Critically, you also begin building the legal file (dossieropbouw) that is essential should further action be required.
Building a Culture That Prevents Quiet Quitting
While a robust response to disengagement is essential, the most effective quiet quitting employer response is preventative. The ultimate goal is not merely to manage the problem but to cultivate a workplace culture so engaging that the concept of quiet quitting becomes irrelevant.
This requires a long-term commitment to fostering an environment where purpose, recognition, and well-being are integral to your company’s identity. It is about creating a workplace where contributions are seen and celebrated, and every employee understands how their work contributes to the larger mission.
Lean Into Dutch Work-Life Norms
The Netherlands provides a cultural advantage in this regard. The strong emphasis on work-life balance is not an obstacle but one of your most powerful defences against the burnout that often triggers quiet quitting.
Dutch workers often view their relationship with work differently. Eurostat data shows they average just 32.1 hours per week, giving the Netherlands one of the highest rates of short workweeks in Europe. This preference for part-time work and flexible schedules is a natural antidote to the “always-on” culture that can lead to mental disengagement.
Instead of resisting this norm, embrace it. By actively championing healthy boundaries, you signal respect for your team’s lives outside of work. This respect fosters loyalty and, in turn, higher engagement during work hours.
Train Leaders Who Can Actually Lead
An employee’s direct manager has the most significant impact on their daily experience. While a toxic manager is an obvious problem, even a well-intentioned but undertrained manager can inadvertently drive an employee toward disengagement.
Invest in leadership training that extends beyond operational management. Focus on essential soft skills:
- Giving effective feedback: Teach managers to deliver constructive input that supports employee development.
- Active listening: Equip leaders with the ability to genuinely hear and understand their team’s concerns.
- Recognising contributions: Implement simple, consistent systems for acknowledging and appreciating good work.
The adage “people don’t leave companies, they leave managers” holds true. Investing in empathetic, skilled leadership is the single most effective action you can take to prevent disengagement. It transforms the employer-employee relationship from a transactional one to a genuine partnership.
Create Clarity, Create Opportunity
Employees disengage when they feel stagnant. If an employee cannot envision a future for themselves within your company, they have little incentive to give their best effort.
Counteract this by developing clear and tangible pathways for growth. This means more than vague promises of promotion. Create transparent career frameworks that show employees exactly what skills and achievements are required for advancement.
Conduct regular career conversations, separate from performance reviews. These discussions should focus on the employee’s long-term aspirations and how the company can support their professional journey.
By building a culture rooted in recognition, support, and clear opportunity, you can explore proven strategies that work to move from quiet quitting to full engagement. This creates an environment where employees are not just present, but fully invested.
When Dialogue Fails: Navigating the Escalation Path
There may come a point where conversations, support, and even a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) fail to produce the desired change. When you have exhausted all attempts to re-engage the employee and performance issues persist, it is time to shift to a formal, legally sound escalation process.
This is not a punitive measure but a necessary step to protect your business interests while fulfilling your duties as an employer under Dutch law.
The foundation for any escalation is meticulous documentation, a process known in the Netherlands as ‘dossieropbouw’. This legal file must be comprehensive and accurate.
The Critical Role of Dossieropbouw
Without a complete and consistent file, any attempt to proceed with termination for underperformance is almost certain to fail before the UWV (Employee Insurance Agency) or a Dutch court. Your file must provide a clear, objective, and chronological account of the entire process.
The file should include:
- Dated meeting notes from all discussions, both informal check-ins and formal performance reviews.
- Copies of all written communication, including emails summarising conversations and agreed-upon actions.
- The formal PIP, detailing specific, measurable goals, the support provided, and the agreed timeline.
- Progress reports from PIP review meetings, ideally signed by both the manager and the employee.
This dossier serves as evidence that you have acted as a ‘good employer’ by providing every reasonable opportunity for the employee to improve.
Under Dutch law, the burden of proof for a performance-related dismissal lies almost entirely with the employer. A weak dossier is a fatal flaw in your legal case and can lead to rejected dismissal requests or significant severance payments.
Issuing a Formal Warning
If an employee fails to meet the objectives outlined in the PIP or refuses to cooperate, the next formal step is an official written warning. This is a serious legal document that must be handled with precision.
The warning letter must explicitly state:
- The specific performance failures, directly referencing the goals in the PIP.
- That this is an official warning and a copy will be placed in their personnel file.
- The clear consequences of continued underperformance, which may include dismissal.
This step serves two critical purposes: it informs the employee of the gravity of the situation and adds a vital layer to your legal dossier, demonstrating a fair and escalating procedure.
In some unresolved conflicts, an outside perspective can be beneficial. Before proceeding to the final step, consider professional intervention. You can learn more about how to use mediation effectively in Dutch employment law disputes as a potential path forward.
The Final Step: Termination for Underperformance
Pursuing termination is a last resort, to be considered only after all other avenues have been exhausted. In the Netherlands, terminating an employment contract for underperformance generally requires permission from the UWV.
To succeed, your application must prove that the underperformance is significant, the employee was clearly informed, they were given ample opportunity to improve, and the poor performance is not attributable to poor working conditions or a medical issue.
The evidence submitted to prove these points will be your meticulously built ‘dossier’. The process is rigorous and the standards are high, reinforcing why a proactive, documented, and fair approach from the outset is a legal necessity.
Key Questions About Quiet Quitting Answered
Navigating quiet quitting can be legally complex, particularly under Dutch employment law. Here are clear answers to common questions from employers to help you handle these situations confidently.
Can I Dismiss an Employee in the Netherlands for Quiet Quitting?
No, you cannot dismiss an employee directly for “quiet quitting.” This is not a legally recognised ground for dismissal in the Netherlands, as the employee is typically still performing the basic duties outlined in their contract. The issue becomes legally actionable when this behaviour evolves into clear and persistent underperformance.
In such cases, you may have grounds for dismissal, but only after completing a comprehensive and fair Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) that proves unsuccessful. The key to any successful action is the creation of a robust legal file (‘dossieropbouw’). This file must demonstrate that you established clear expectations and provided the employee with every reasonable opportunity to improve. Without this solid evidence, a dismissal request submitted to the UWV or a court will almost certainly be rejected.
Is It a Good Idea to Reduce an Employee’s Responsibilities?
This action requires extreme caution. Unilaterally altering an employee’s core responsibilities can be interpreted as a breach of their employment contract or an act of ‘bad employership’ (slecht werkgeverschap). Any significant change to their role typically requires the employee’s explicit consent.
It can be a constructive solution if mutually agreed upon as part of a formal plan to realign their role. However, using it as a punitive measure is legally risky. If you impose a role reduction without their agreement, you may face a legal dispute where a court is likely to side with the employee, potentially ordering you to reinstate their original duties or pay financial compensation.
What if an Employee Refuses a Performance Improvement Plan?
An employee’s refusal to cooperate with a reasonable and fair PIP is a serious matter. Under Dutch law, an employee is expected to act as a ‘good employee’ (goed werknemer), which includes cooperating with legitimate instructions and processes designed to improve their performance.
Their refusal can be viewed as culpable conduct or even a serious breach of their contractual obligations.
An employee’s refusal to engage with a fair PIP fundamentally shifts the legal dynamic. It provides strong evidence that you, the employer, have made a good faith effort to resolve the issue, while the employee has failed to reciprocate.
Your next step is critical: formally document their refusal in writing. You must issue an official warning that clearly outlines the potential consequences, including dismissal, and add this to their file. This action significantly strengthens your legal position should you need to escalate the situation and pursue termination.
At Law and More, we specialise in helping employers navigate the complexities of Dutch employment law. If you’re facing challenges with employee disengagement or performance, contact us for practical, legally sound advice. Visit us at https://lawandmore.eu to learn how we can protect your business interests.