Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED)

Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

ISSN (PRINT): 2715-3118, ISSN (ONLINE): 2685-8258

Unpacking the Quiet Quitting Phenomenon: The Role of Work Stress in the Workload
and Work-Life Balance

Ramadhi1,*, Eko Fikriando2, Donal Ortega3, Barkhia Yunas4, Relifra5, Destia Ayu
Lestari6
Universitas Adzkia, Indonesia1,2,3,4,5,6
Corresponding e-mail: [email protected]*

HISTORY ABSTRACT
Submitted Purpose: This study explores the role of work stress as a mediator
6 November 2024 in the relationship between workload, work-life balance, and the
phenomenon of quiet quitting among Generation Z employees.
Revised
11 November 2024 Method: The research adopts a quantitative approach, utilizing a
random sampling technique. Data were collected from 156
Accepted
Generation Z employees in West Sumatra through a structured
13 November 2024
questionnaire designed to assess workload, work-life balance, work
stress, and quiet quitting behaviors. The collected data were
analyzed using Smart PLS 4.0 to examine the relationships among
these variables.
Result: The findings found that workload has a significant impact on
work stress, while work-life balance does not significantly affect work
stress. Similarly, workload significantly influences quiet quitting, but
work-life balance does not. Work stress is also found to significantly
impact quiet quitting. However, work stress does not mediate the
relationship between workload and quiet quitting. In contrast, work
stress does mediate the relationship between work-life balance and
quiet quitting.
Practical Implications for Economic Growth and Development:
This study provides practical insights for businesses in West Sumatra
to better manage workloads and support work-life balance initiatives.
By addressing workload-related stress and fostering a healthier
work-life balance, organizations can reduce quiet quitting, thereby
improving employee well-being, engagement, and overall
productivity. These improvements contribute to sustainable
economic growth and development.
Keywords: quite quitting, generation Z, work stress, workload, work-
life balance
How to cite: Ramadhi, Fikriando, E., Ortega, D., Yunas, B., Relifra, & Lestari, D. A. (2024).
Unpacking the Quiet Quitting Phenomenon: The Role of Work Stress in the Workload and
Work-Life Balance. Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), 6(3), 627–642.
https://doi.org/10.20414/jed.v6i3.11643

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Ramadhi, Eko Fikriando, Donal Ortega, Barkhia Yunas, Relifra, Destia Ayu Lestari
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the phenomenon of "quiet quitting" has gained significant attention,
particularly among Generation Z workers. This term refers to employees who fulfill only the
minimum requirements of their jobs, without going beyond what is expected in terms of effort
or enthusiasm, often as a response to work stress (Bae & Yang, 2022). The increasing
prevalence of quiet quitting is closely linked to the work environment, which is often
characterized by high workloads and imbalances between work and personal life (Kumar &
Jain, 2021). As Generation Z continues to enter the workforce, understanding the factors
contributing to quiet quitting among this demographic becomes essential, particularly in urban
areas like West Sumatra, where the labor market is becoming increasingly competitive. The
trend of quiet quitting, which has gained popularity among Gen Z, was popularized by Zaid
Khan, an engineer from New York, through a TikTok video (Fikri Zaidan & Juariyah, 2020).
Research conducted in Indonesia in 2023 reveals that 35% of employees in major cities tend
to perform only the minimum duties required of them. A study by Andika Pratama, involving
500 respondents, found that 60% of Generation Z and 45% of Millennials engage in quiet
quitting due to low work-life balance and lack of recognition (Pratama, 2023). Similarly, Sari
(2023) discovered that 54% of employees under 35 experience high stress levels, leading
them to set clear boundaries at work. These findings highlight the growing need for companies
to prioritize employee well-being in the workplace.
Workload is a key factor influencing employee well-being and job satisfaction. Excessive
workload has been shown to lead to stress, burnout, and disengagement, particularly among
younger workers (Lee & Wang, 2020). Generation Z, in particular, is especially vulnerable to
the negative effects of heavy workloads, which are often exacerbated by their expectations
for a healthy work-life balance (Smith, Brown, & Turner, 2022). Understanding the link
between workload and quiet quitting is crucial for organizations seeking to improve employee
engagement and retention. Alongside workload, work-life balance plays a critical role in
shaping employees' attitudes toward their jobs. A balanced approach to work and personal
life has been associated with higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions (Gonzalez
& Palacios, 2022). However, many Generation Z workers report struggling to achieve this
balance, which can lead to feelings of overwhelm and frustration (Nguyen & Tran, 2023).
Research emphasizes the importance of organizations offering flexible work arrangements
and supportive policies to help mitigate the negative impact of workload on work-life balance
(Pérez & Romero, 2021).
Furthermore, the interaction between workload and work-life balance can create a complex
relationship that affects quiet quitting. Studies suggest that when employees perceive their
workload as manageable and their work-life balance as adequate, they are more likely to
remain engaged and committed to their jobs (Johnson & Smith, 2022). Conversely, a heavy
workload combined with poor work-life balance tends to increase instances of quiet quitting
(Lee & Wang, 2020). This highlights the need for organizations to implement strategies that
address both factors to foster a more engaged workforce.
In the context of West Sumatra, the region's unique socio-cultural dynamics and economic
challenges may further shape Generation Z workers' experiences with work stress. As this
generation navigates the complexities of modern work environments, their responses to
stressors such as workload and work-life balance may differ from those of previous
generations (Setiawan & Nugroho, 2021). Understanding these local nuances is crucial for
developing targeted interventions to support employee well-being. The existing literature lays
a solid foundation for exploring the relationship between work stress, workload, work-life
balance, and quiet quitting. Previous studies have documented the negative impact of high
workloads on employee engagement and the protective role of work-life balance in mitigating
these effects (Ahmed & Khan, 2020; Zhao & Wu, 2023).
Recent research has revealed significant gaps in understanding the connection between work
stress, workload, work-life balance, and quiet quitting among Generation Z. Studies by Amin,
Nor, and Ahmad (2022) and Tse and Keshri (2023) highlight that high workloads and poor

JED | 628
 Unpacking the Quiet Quitting Phenomenon: The Role of Work Stress…
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

work-life balance are key contributors to increased stress, which often leads to quiet quitting
as a form of disengagement. Generation Z employees, who faced unique challenges during
the COVID-19 pandemic, tend to prioritize mental health and work-life balance more than
previous generations.
Additionally, Stygar and Huffington (2024) emphasize the role of economic pressures and
workplace dynamics in driving quiet quitting. They argue that stress mediates the relationship
between workload and disengagement, indicating the need for better stress management
strategies. Jiang and Luo (2023) further support this view, showing that organizational
stressors exacerbate disengagement among Gen Z in China, particularly when work-life
balance is compromised. Martinez and Petrova (2023) examine how digital transformation
and remote work have influenced work-life balance, finding that flexibility can reduce stress
and quiet quitting, though it may also lead to increased cyberloafing. Meanwhile, Davies,
Patel, and Li (2022) demonstrate that high workloads and resulting stress significantly raise
burnout rates, prompting Generation Z employees in the retail sector to engage in quiet
quitting. Collectively, these studies underscore the importance of addressing work stress and
enhancing work-life balance to reduce quiet quitting among younger employees.
The novelty of this study lies in its focus on Generation Z workers in Indonesia, specifically in
West Sumatra, where socio-cultural and economic factors present unique challenges to work-
life integration and stress management. By comparing global findings with local realities, this
research aims to fill existing gaps and offer targeted recommendations for managing work
stress among the younger workforces. Understanding these local nuances will provide
valuable insights to inform the development of tailored interventions that can improve
employee well-being, engagement, and retention in the region.
This study seeks to address this gap by examining the moderating effects of work-life balance
on the relationship between workload and quiet quitting among Generation Z workers in West
Sumatra. By integrating insights from recent literature, the research will contribute to a deeper
understanding of the interplay between these factors and provide valuable recommendations
for organizations aiming to improve employee engagement and reduce quiet quitting among
this demographic.

METHOD
This research focuses on Generation Z employees in West Sumatra. The study population
consists of individuals born between early 1997 and early 2012, residing in West Sumatra. As
the exact population size is unknown, a random sampling technique was employed, ensuring
every element in the population had an equal chance of being selected (Ramadhi et al., 2023).
This technique enables the researcher to obtain a representative sample without needing
complete information about the entire population. More than 100 respondents were randomly
selected from relevant groups, with the final sample size reaching 156 participants. This
sample size is considered sufficiently large to ensure the validity of the study's results (Fikri
Zaidan & Juariyah, 2020).
Data collection was conducted using a structured questionnaire designed to measure key
variables such as work stress, workload, work-life balance, and quiet quitting. The data were
gathered from Generation Z workers in West Sumatra. The research employs a quantitative
methodology with a positivist approach, aiming to explain how work stress mediates the
relationship between workload, work-life balance, and quiet quitting. The hypotheses were
tested through quantitative statistical analysis to provide insights into the dynamics of work
stress among Generation Z employees in West Sumatra. Data analysis was conducted using
the Smart PLS 4.0 application (Qureshi et al., 2023).

JED | 629
Ramadhi, Eko Fikriando, Donal Ortega, Barkhia Yunas, Relifra, Destia Ayu Lestari
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

Hypotheses Development
Workload and Work Stress
Research has shown that workload is a significant factor influencing work stress among
employees. High workloads can increase job demands, leading to stress, burnout, and
reduced job satisfaction. A study by Rantanen (2020) found that employees facing heavy
workloads tend to report higher stress levels, which negatively impact both their performance
and well-being. Similarly, Pan (2022) demonstrated that work overload is directly correlated
with increased stress, especially in high-pressure environments. Furthermore, Yildirim (2023)
emphasized that excessive workloads can disrupt work-life balance, intensifying stress and
contributing to mental health issues. Finally, Bai (2023) confirmed that workload-induced
stress leads to emotional exhaustion and decreased motivation, particularly when employees
perceive their workload as unmanageable. These findings highlight the importance for
organizations to monitor workload distribution and provide support to reduce stress.
H1: Workload has a positive effect on work stress

Work-life Balance and Work Stress

Work-life balance (WLB) has a significant impact on work stress, as highlighted by various
studies. A healthy work-life balance helps reduce employee stress by alleviating burnout and
providing personal time for recovery. Research indicates that organizations with supportive
WLB policies tend to experience lower levels of work stress among their employees. For
example, Haar, McDonnell, and Sune (2020), Jones, Bright, and Clough (2020), and Yadav
and Sharma (2021) found that work demands, long hours, and lack of family support can
exacerbate stress, while flexible policies and greater autonomy help reduce it. These studies
emphasize the importance of organizational and societal factors in shaping employees' work-
life balance and stress levels.
H2: Work-life balance negatively impacts work stress

Workload and Quiet Quitting

A heavy workload often leads to increased job stress, causing employees to feel
overwhelmed, exhausted, and dissatisfied with their roles (Johnson & Smith, 2022). This
stress diminishes job satisfaction and is closely linked to disengagement, which can contribute
to burnout and quiet quitting (Maslach & Leiter, 2020). According to Greenhaus and Allen
(n.d.), retail employees facing high workloads experience decreased motivation and mental
fatigue, often resulting in them mentally "checking out" and only completing the minimum
requirements of their roles. Additionally, Kwan and Lee (2021) found that Generation Z
workers, when confronted with excessive job demands, tend to disengage and reduce their
efforts, which often leads to quiet quitting. These findings suggest that high workloads,
especially among younger workers, may be a key factor driving quiet quitting behavior.
H3: Workload has a positive effect on quiet quitting

Work-life Balance and Quiet Quitting

Work-life balance plays a significant role in quiet quitting, as employees who struggle to
balance their professional and personal lives are more likely to disengage from work. When
work demands overwhelm personal time, employees often experience stress and
dissatisfaction, leading to reduced motivation and effort at work (Oakman et al., 2020).
Research shows that poor work-life balance is closely linked to burnout, which is a key
precursor to quiet quitting (Kelly et al., 2020). In a study by Tiwari et al. (2019), employees
with poor work-life balance were more likely to exhibit signs of disengagement, focusing solely
on completing their essential tasks rather than contributing extra effort. Similarly, Nguyen and

JED | 630
 Unpacking the Quiet Quitting Phenomenon: The Role of Work Stress…
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

Tran (2023) found that Generation Z workers, in particular, are prone to quiet quitting when
they feel that their work interferes too much with their personal lives, leading them to reduce
their engagement and work efforts. Therefore, maintaining a healthy work-life balance is
crucial to preventing quiet quitting.
H4: Work-life balance negatively impacts quiet quitting

Work Stress and Quiet Quitting

Work stress plays a significant role in the phenomenon of quiet quitting, as it often leads to
burnout and disengagement. For example, Kachhap and Singh (2024) found that stress-
induced burnout is a key factor in quiet quitting, with job satisfaction serving as a mediator in
this relationship. Similarly, Karapetrou (2023) conducted a study on Greek nurses, showing
that burnout directly contributes to quiet quitting, emphasizing the impact of job stress on
employee retention. Additionally, a broader study by Alghamdi and Alharthi (2024) linked
work-related stress to lower organizational commitment, which increases the likelihood of
quiet quitting behaviors. These studies underscore the critical need for organizations to
address work stress in order to prevent disengagement and improve employee retention.
H5: Work stress positively impacts quiet quitting

Workload and Quiet Quitting Mediated by Work Stress

Workload can contribute to quiet quitting through its impact on work stress. When employees
face heavy workloads, it often leads to increased stress levels, which can diminish their overall
engagement and job satisfaction. This heightened work stress acts as a mediator between
workload and quiet quitting, draining employees' energy and motivation, and causing them to
disengage from going above and beyond their job duties. Research indicates that excessive
workload creates pressure and feelings of overwhelm, leading to burnout, which is strongly
associated with quiet quitting behaviors (Taris & Schaufeli, 2021). A study by Kwan and Lee
(2021) found that employees with high workloads experienced greater stress, causing them
to disengage from discretionary tasks and focus solely on completing their essential duties.
Similarly, Spector (2020) highlighted that high work demands, coupled with increased stress,
led Generation Z workers to reduce their efforts, contributing to quiet quitting. Thus, work
stress plays a crucial role in mediating the relationship between workload and quiet quitting.
H6: Work stress mediates the nexus between workload and quiet quitting

Work-life Balance and Quiet Quitting Mediated by Work Stress

Work-life balance can act as a protective factor against quiet quitting, with work stress serving
as a mediator in this relationship. When employees maintain a healthy balance between their
work and personal life, they are better equipped to manage stress, reducing the risk of burnout
and disengagement. However, when work-life balance is compromised, employees are more
likely to experience heightened work stress, which can lead to quiet quitting behaviors.
Research indicates that poor work-life balance increases stress, which negatively impacts job
satisfaction and motivation, ultimately contributing to quiet quitting (Clark, 2020). In a study
by Lee and Ashforth (2020), employees with poor work-life balance were more likely to
experience higher stress, leading to disengagement and reduced discretionary effort.
Similarly, Taris and Schaufeli (2021) found that when Generation Z workers struggled with
work-life balance, their stress levels increased, making them more prone to quiet quitting.
Thus, work stress mediates the relationship between work-life balance and quiet quitting,
where poor balance leads to increased stress, which in turn fosters disengagement.
H7: Work stress mediates the nexus between work-life balance and quiet quitting

JED | 631
Ramadhi, Eko Fikriando, Donal Ortega, Barkhia Yunas, Relifra, Destia Ayu Lestari
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

Figure 1. Research Framework

H3

H6
Workload
H1
H5
Work stress Quiet quitting
H2
Work-life balance
H7

H4

Source: Developed by the authors (2024)

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Convergent Validity
According to Hair et al. (2014), convergent validity assesses whether multiple indicators of a
construct are related and measure the same concept. It is confirmed when the factor loadings
are above 0.70, indicating a strong representation of the construct. The results of convergent
validity are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Convergent Validity Result

Item Quiet Quitting (Y) Work Stress (Z) Work-Life Balance (X2) Workload (X1)
X1.1 0.848
X1.2 0.759
X1.3 0.831
X1.4 0.854
X1.5 0.850
X1.6 0.817
X2.1 0.841
X2.2 0.857
X2.3 0.799
X2.4 0.816
X2.5 0.841
X2.6 0,701
Y1.1 0.820
Y1.2 0.847
Y1.3 0.774
Y1.4 0.859
Y1.5 0.871
Y1.6 0.853
Z1.1 0.851
Z1.2 0.824
Z1.3 0.888
Z1.4 0.875
Z1.5 0.793
Source: Processed data (2024)

JED | 632
 Unpacking the Quiet Quitting Phenomenon: The Role of Work Stress…
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

Based on Table 1 above, most indicators for the research variables have outer loading values
above 0.60, indicating good validity. Therefore, the statements are considered valid and
suitable for further analysis.

Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity assesses whether a construct is truly distinct from other constructs in a
model. It ensures that the indicators of a construct are not highly correlated with indicators of
different constructs, thereby confirming that each construct measures a unique concept. In
this research, discriminant validity is evaluated using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, which
states that the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct must
be greater than the correlation between that construct and other constructs. The results of the
discriminant validity, including the extracted AVE values, are presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Discriminant Validity Result

Quiet Work Stress Work-Life Workload
Quitting (Y) (Z) Balance (X2) (X1)
Quiet Quitting (Y) 0.838
Work Stress (Z) 0.804 0.847
Work-Life
0.335 0.349 0.799
Balance (X2)
Workload (X1) 0.814 0.808 0.287 0.827
Source: Processed data (2024)

Based on the table, it is evident that the loading value of each indicator item for its respective
construct is greater than the cross-loading value with other constructs. This indicates that all
constructs or latent variables exhibit good discriminant validity. In other words, the indicators
within each construct block are more strongly related to their own construct than to indicators
in other construct blocks, confirming that each construct measures a unique concept.

Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) measures the amount of variance a construct
captures from its indicators. An AVE value above 0.50 indicates good convergent validity,
demonstrating that the construct explains at least 50% of the variance in its indicators. The
results of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct are presented in Table 3
below.

Table 3. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Result

Variables Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Quiet Quitting (Y) 0.702
Work Stress (Z) 0.717
Work-Life Balance (X2) 0.638
Workload (X1) 0.684
Source: Processed data (2024)

Based on the table above, it can be seen that all constructs or variables meet the criteria for
good convergent validity, as indicated by the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values
exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.50. Therefore, it can be concluded that each

JED | 633
Ramadhi, Eko Fikriando, Donal Ortega, Barkhia Yunas, Relifra, Destia Ayu Lestari
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

variable demonstrates good convergent validity and adequately captures the variance in its
indicators.

Reliability Test
Cronbach's Alpha is a measure of reliability that assesses the internal consistency of a set of
indicators, showing how well the items within a construct correlate with each other. A
Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.70 or higher is generally considered acceptable, indicating good
reliability. The results of the reliability analysis, including Cronbach's Alpha values for each
construct, are presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Reliability Test

Variables Cronbach's Alpha
Quiet Quitting (Y) 0.915
Work Stress (Z) 0.901
Work-Life Balance(X2) 0.885
Workload (X1) 0.907
Source: Processed data (2024)

Based on the table above, it can be seen that the Cronbach’s alpha values are above 0.70,
indicating that the constructs have good reliability and meet the required minimum threshold.
Additionally, the composite reliability values are close to 1.0, suggesting that the questionnaire
is highly reliable. The reliability coefficients, which range from 0.8 to 1.0, further indicate high
reliability for all the variables used in the study.

Inner Model
After the outer model testing is complete, the next step is to evaluate the inner model
(structural model). The inner model, also known as the structural model, assesses the
relationships between latent constructs in a structural equation model (SEM). One of the key
metrics used to evaluate the inner model is the R-square (R²) value, which indicates the
amount of variance explained by the model for each endogenous latent variable. A higher R²
value suggests that the model explains a larger proportion of the variance in the dependent
constructs, indicating a better fit of the model to the data.

Table 5. Inner Model

Variables R Square R Square Adjusted
Quiet Quitting (Y) 0.727 0.715
Work Stress (Z) 0.668 0.659
Source: Processed data (2024)

Based on the figure above, it can be seen that the R-square value for the quiet quitting variable
is 0.272, or 27.2%, meaning that 27.2% of the variance in quiet quitting is explained by the
model. For work stress, the R-square value is 0.728, or 72.8%, indicating that 72.8% of the
variance in work stress is explained by the model. The remaining variance for both variables
is influenced by factors outside the scope of this research.

JED | 634
 Unpacking the Quiet Quitting Phenomenon: The Role of Work Stress…
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

Direct Effect
Table 6 presents the results of the direct effects analysis in the structural model, showing the
relationships between workload, work-life balance, work stress, and quiet quitting.

Table 6. Direct Effect

Original Sample T Statistics P
Direction
(O) (|O/STDEV|) Values
Workload (X1) → Work Stress (Z) 0.772 13.951 0.000
Work-Life Balance (X2) → Work
0.127 1.372 0.170
Stress (Z)
Workload (X1) → Quiet Quitting (Y) 0.472 4.485 0.000
Work-Life Balance (X2) → Quiet
0.059 0,761 0.446
Quitting (Y)
Work Stres (Z) → Quiet Quitting (Y) 0.402 3.402 0.001
Source: Processed data (2024)

Based on the table above, the results provide insights into the relationships between the
variables. The hypothesis that workload affects work stress is supported, as evidenced by a
t-statistic value of 13.951, which is greater than 1.96, and a p-value of 0.000, which is less
than the significance level of 0.05. In contrast, the hypothesis that work-life balance affects
work stress is not supported, as the t-statistic value (1.372) is less than 1.96, and the p-value
(0.170) is greater than 0.05, indicating no significant effect. Similarly, the hypothesis that
workload affects quiet quitting is supported, with a t-statistic of 4.485 and a p-value of 0.000,
showing a significant relationship. However, work-life balance does not significantly affect
quiet quitting, as indicated by a t-statistic value of 0.761 and a p-value of 0.446, both falling
outside the acceptable thresholds for significance. Finally, the hypothesis that work stress
influences quiet quitting is supported, with a t-statistic of 3.402 and a p-value of 0.001,
confirming a significant effect.

Indirect Effect
Table 7 presents the results of the indirect effects testing, which examine how work stress
mediates the relationship between the independent variables (workload and work-life
balance) and the dependent variable (quiet quitting).

Table 7. Indirect Effect

Original
T Statistics
Direction Sample P Values
(|O/STDEV|)
(O)
Workload (X1) → Quiet Quitting (Y) → Work
0.310 1.117 0.264
Stress (Z)
Work-Life Balance (X2) → Quiet Quitting (Y)
0.051 3.467 0.001
→ Work Stress (Z)
Source: Processed data (2024)

Work stress does not mediate the relationship between workload and quiet quitting, as
indicated by the t-statistic value, which is below 1.96, and the p-value greater than the alpha
level (0.264 > 0.05). In contrast, work stress does mediate the relationship between work-life

JED | 635
Ramadhi, Eko Fikriando, Donal Ortega, Barkhia Yunas, Relifra, Destia Ayu Lestari
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

balance and quiet quitting, as evidenced by the t-statistic value greater than 1.96 and the p-
value less than the alpha level (0.001 < 0.05).

Discussion
Workload and Work Stress
The research findings highlight a significant impact of workload on work stress, confirming
that higher workloads are associated with increased stress levels among employees. This
relationship is supported by previous studies emphasizing the critical role of workload in
exacerbating work-related stress. Kompier and Kristensen (2021) identified heavy workloads
as a primary source of stress in the workplace, noting that when employees perceive their
workload as unmanageable, it leads to higher stress levels, negatively impacting job
satisfaction and health. Schaufeli and Bakker (2020) further found that excessive job
demands, including high workloads, contribute significantly to burnout, which can lead to
emotional exhaustion and reduced ability to manage stress. Lee and Wang (2020)
demonstrated that an excessive workload not only intensifies stress but also disrupts
employees' work-life balance, leading to disengagement and mental fatigue. This aligns with
the current study, where workload is shown to directly influence work stress, which may, in
turn, result in disengagement behaviors such as quiet quitting. Additionally, González-Romá,
Hernández, and García (2022) highlighted the strong connection between stress from
workload and job burnout, a condition that severely affects employee performance and
satisfaction. Their research underscores how high job demands can deplete employees'
mental and physical resources, contributing to chronic stress.

Work-life Balance and Work Stress

The results of this study suggest that work-life balance does not have a significant impact on
work stress, as there is no notable relationship between the two variables. While work-life
balance is often regarded as a key factor in reducing stress (Grzywacz & Bass, 2020; Hill,
Ferris, & Märtinson, 2021), the findings of this study align with research indicating that its
effectiveness may depend on other contextual factors, such as organizational culture or
workload. Previous studies have highlighted the nuanced relationship between work-life
balance and stress, with Kalliath and Kalliath (2020) noting that its effectiveness is often
influenced by individual time management skills and organizational support, while Kim and
Lee (2022) emphasized that work-life balance interventions can alleviate stress, but only
when combined with effective workload management and organizational flexibility. However,
some studies suggest that work-life balance alone may not significantly reduce stress without
considering other contributing factors (Tariq, Javed, & Shahzad, 2023). In contrast, the current
study's findings suggest that work-life balance, at least in this context, does not play a
significant role in alleviating work stress, echoing research that cautions against
overemphasizing it as the sole strategy for mitigating stress (Van Hooff & Geurts, 2021), with
other factors such as workload and organizational environment likely having a more
substantial impact on stress levels.

Workload and Quiet Quitting

The research findings indicate that workload has a significant impact on quiet quitting,
suggesting that a heavier workload can lead employees to disengage from their work—a
behavior characteristic of quiet quitting. This aligns with prior studies examining the
relationship between workload and employee disengagement. For example, Smith, Brown,
and Turner (2022) found that higher workload levels were strongly associated with lower job
satisfaction and increased disengagement, both of which are key components of quiet
quitting. The study concludes that excessive workloads contribute to feelings of being
overwhelmed and stressed, which cause employees to withdraw mentally from their

JED | 636
 Unpacking the Quiet Quitting Phenomenon: The Role of Work Stress…
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

responsibilities, even though they remain physically present at work. This is consistent with
the current study's findings, where heavy workload emerged as a major factor contributing to
quiet quitting. Additionally, Johnson and Lee (2023) found that an imbalanced or excessive
workload significantly influences quiet quitting, as workload pressures lead to emotional
exhaustion, reducing motivation and engagement. These findings support the current
research, which emphasizes a clear connection between workload and quiet quitting.
Similarly, Bakker and Demerouti (2021) reinforced the link between excessive workload and
disengagement. Furthermore, Lee and Wang (2020) explored the connection between
workload and stress, highlighting that high workload levels increase stress, which negatively
affects work-life balance. They argued that as work stress increases, employees' sense of
responsibility toward their tasks diminishes, making them more likely to engage in quiet
quitting. This idea is echoed in the current study, where both workload and stress are shown
to contribute to disengagement, aligning with the findings of Leka, Griffiths, and Cox (2023).

Work-life Balance and Quiet Quitting

The research findings indicate that work-life balance does not have a significant impact on
quiet quitting, as there is no strong evidence to suggest a relationship between the two
variables. Despite being widely discussed as a key factor in employee engagement and job
satisfaction, the study does not support the idea that a better work-life balance reduces quiet
quitting behaviors, nor does it suggest that an imbalance in work-life balance leads to higher
rates of quiet quitting. While previous research has linked work-life balance to employee
engagement and retention, the findings of this study suggest that it may not play a significant
role in influencing quiet quitting in this context. This contrasts with studies like those by
Crawford, LePine, and Rich (2021), who found that employees with poor work-life balance
were more likely to experience burnout and disengagement, potentially leading to quiet
quitting. However, the current study does not support this relationship, possibly due to
differences in sample characteristics or contextual factors. Similarly, Barnett and Hyde (2021)
argued that work-life imbalance can negatively impact motivation and energy levels,
contributing to disengagement. Yet, the lack of statistical significance in this study suggests
that other factors, such as workload or organizational culture, may play a more prominent role
in influencing quiet quitting, as supported by Jex and Bliese (2020).

Work Stress and Quiet Quitting

The research findings indicate that work stress plays a significant role in quiet quitting, with
emotional exhaustion, burnout, and feelings of being overwhelmed leading employees to
disengage from their work. Rather than leaving their jobs, employees under high stress may
mentally withdraw, reducing their effort and involvement, which manifests as quiet quitting.
This supports previous studies, such as those by Smith, Brown, and Turner (2022), who
identified work stress as a key predictor of disengagement, with employees experiencing
lower motivation and enthusiasm. Similarly, Lee and Wang (2020) highlighted how
heightened stress negatively impacts job satisfaction and engagement, contributing to quiet
quitting behaviors. Johnson and Lee (2023) also found that stress from workload and work
environment pressures influences emotional detachment. These findings reinforce the
importance of addressing work stress, suggesting that organizations should implement
supportive management practices, wellness programs, and effective workload management
to reduce disengagement and promote a more engaged workforce.

Workload and Quiet Quitting Mediated by Work Stress

The research findings suggest that work stress does not mediate the effect of workload on
quiet quitting. Despite previous research indicating that work stress can exacerbate the effects
of workload on employee disengagement, the current study does not support this mediating
role. This contrasts with other studies, such as those by Smith and Lee (2021), who found

JED | 637
Ramadhi, Eko Fikriando, Donal Ortega, Barkhia Yunas, Relifra, Destia Ayu Lestari
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

that high stress due to workload increased the likelihood of quiet quitting, indicating a direct
relationship. Similarly, Jiang and Luo (2023) argued that stress serves as a mediator,
amplifying the effects of workload on job satisfaction and disengagement. However, the
current study's lack of significant mediation may be attributed to differences in sample
characteristics, contextual factors, or other unaccounted variables. This finding suggests that
while both work stress and workload are important contributors to quiet quitting, the
relationship between them is not always mediated by stress in every context. Future research
could explore other potential mediators, such as organizational culture or social support,
which might influence the dynamics between workload and quiet quitting.

Work-life Balance and Quiet Quitting Mediated by Work Stress

The finding that work stress mediates the effect of work-life balance on quiet quitting suggests
that work stress plays a crucial role in how employees perceive their ability to balance work
and personal life, which in turn influences their engagement and likelihood to disengage. This
relationship is supported by research showing that work stress significantly impacts how work-
life balance affects quiet quitting. For example, González-Romá, Hernández, and García
(2022) found that poor work-life balance increases work stress, which leads to disengagement
behaviors. Miller and Walker (2023) also noted that employees who experience higher stress
due to imbalances between work and personal life are more likely to quiet quit, as they
become emotionally exhausted and less motivated. Furthermore, Davis and Thompson
(2021) highlighted that work stress is a key mediator in the relationship between work-life
balance and employee engagement, confirming that when employees feel overwhelmed by
their workload or expectations, it exacerbates the negative effects of poor work-life balance,
resulting in lower motivation and higher disengagement. These findings underscore the
importance of addressing work stress within organizational strategies to reduce quiet quitting,
suggesting that improving work-life balance alone may not be enough unless work stress is
also effectively managed.

CONCLUSION
This study aimed to explore the relationship between workload, work-life balance, and quiet
quitting among Generation Z workers in Indonesia, with a specific focus on how work stress
mediates this relationship. The findings revealed that high workloads significantly contributed
to increased work stress, which, in turn, was a key factor leading to quiet quitting behaviors.
While work-life balance did not directly affect quiet quitting, it was found to have an indirect
influence by reducing work stress. This suggests that organizations can reduce the likelihood
of quiet quitting by enhancing work-life balance, thereby alleviating the stress that often
contributes to disengagement.
The practical implications of this study highlight the importance of effectively managing
workloads, as excessive demands were shown to create stress and lead to disengagement.
Strategies such as wellness programs, flexible working hours, and workload adjustments can
help reduce work stress and, consequently, decrease instances of quiet quitting. However,
focusing solely on improving work-life balance without addressing the underlying work stress
may not fully resolve the issue of quiet quitting. Organizations should adopt a more holistic
approach, addressing both workload and stress factors simultaneously.
For future research, it would be valuable to explore additional factors that could influence work
stress and quiet quitting, such as leadership styles, organizational culture, and employee
engagement practices. Additionally, conducting longitudinal studies with larger and more
diverse samples could offer a more comprehensive understanding of how these dynamics
evolve over time. Such research could help identify the most effective interventions for
reducing work stress and preventing quiet quitting, ultimately supporting long-term
organizational success and employee well-being.

JED | 638
 Unpacking the Quiet Quitting Phenomenon: The Role of Work Stress…
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

REFERENCES
Ahmed, S., & Khan, A. (2020). Work-life balance as a moderator between workload and job
satisfaction: A study of millennials. International Journal of Human Resource Studies,
10(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v10i3.17445
Alghamdi, H., & Alharthi, M. (2024). Quiet quitting and its organizational impacts. Emerald
Insight, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364
Amin, R., Nor, Z., & Ahmad, N. (2022). Work-life balance and employee retention: A study
on Generation Z. Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(2), 150–163.
https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1992.14.02.164
Bae, S., & Yang, J. (2022). Quiet quitting: A new approach to employee engagement.
Journal of Business Research, 1(2), 122–130.
https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v10i3.17445
Bai, Y., et al. (2023). Exploring the link between workload and emotional exhaustion among
employees: The moderating role of support mechanisms. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 37(2), 119–131.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2021). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2021). Women, men, work, and family: An expansion of the
conceptualization of the work-family interface. Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 701–
724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.701
Clark, S. C. (2020). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human
Relations, 53(6), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.001
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2021). Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364
Davies, R., Patel, S., & Li, Y. (2022). The impact of workload on quiet quitting in retail: A
psychological perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
50(4), 620–635. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Davis, R. E., & Thompson, P. M. (2021). The mediation of work stress in the relationship
between work-life balance and employee engagement. Journal of Business
Research, 134(7), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.001
Fikri Zaidan, A., & Juariyah, L. (2020). The influence of workloads on the job satisfaction of
the lecturers of State University of Malang through job stress as an intervening
variable. KnE Social Sciences, 2020, 156–176. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v4i9.7323
Gonzalez, C., & Palacios, A. (2022). The influence of work-life balance on employee
retention: Evidence from millennials. Journal of Management Studies, 59(5), 1204–
1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12775
González-Romá, V., Hernández, M. A., & García, M. L. (2022). The mediating role of work
stress in the relationship between workload and job satisfaction. Journal of Business
Research, 139(6), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.012
Greenhaus, J. H., & Allen, T. D. (n.d.). Work-family balance: A review and extension of the
literature. Work-Family Balance: A Review and Extension of the Literature, 3(1), 29–
35.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2020). Work-life balance and health outcomes: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(3), 309–325.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2380
Haar, J. M., McDonnell, L., & Sune, A. (2020). Work-life balance and employee wellbeing:
The role of job demands. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8).
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2351
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research.
European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-
0128

JED | 639
Ramadhi, Eko Fikriando, Donal Ortega, Barkhia Yunas, Relifra, Destia Ayu Lestari
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., & Märtinson, V. (2021). Does work-life balance influence work stress?
The role of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(5), 600–617.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000776
Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (2020). Efficacy of stress management interventions in
organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 590–
600. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.590
Jiang, L., & Luo, X. (2023). Organizational stressors and quiet quitting behavior: A study on
Generation Z in China. Asian Business Research Journal, 15(1), 45–57.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ABR-04-2023-0014
Johnson, M., & Lee, S. (2023). Workload, job satisfaction, and employee disengagement:
The impact of stress in contemporary workplaces. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
45(3), 112–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.job.2023.01.008
Johnson, R., & Smith, A. (2022). Balancing workloads: The impact on job satisfaction and
engagement among Generation Z. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(4), 560–
577.
Jones, F., Bright, J., & Clough, P. (2020). The influence of work-life balance on stress and
health. Occupational Health Psychology Review, 11(3), 128–142.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ohp0000123
Kachhap, V., & Singh, T. (2024). Quiet quitting: A comprehensive exploration of hidden
problems. Development and Learning in Organizations, 38(5), 23–26.
https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-10-2023-0214
Kalliath, T., & Kalliath, P. (2020). Work-life balance: A review of the literature and research
agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(4), 431–451.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12278
Karapetrou, A. (2023). The influence of job burnout on quiet quitting among nurses: The
mediating effect of job satisfaction. Research Square, 4(1).
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1396191/v1
Kelly, M., Soles, R., Garcia, E., & Kundu, I. (2020). Job stress, burnout, work-life balance,
well-being, and job satisfaction among pathology residents and fellows. American
Journal of Clinical Pathology, 153(4), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqaa013
Kim, H. J., & Lee, M. (2022). Work-life balance and its impact on work stress and
organizational commitment: A comparative study. Journal of Business Research,
135(7), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.004
Kompier, M., & Kristensen, T. S. (2021). The impact of workload and job stressors on
employee well-being. Work and Stress, 35(2), 163–182.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2021.1876751
Kumar, V., & Jain, R. (2021). Understanding quiet quitting in the modern workplace: A case
study of Generation Z. Journal of Workplace Learning, 33(7), 45–59.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-01-2021-0032
Kwan, H. K., & Lee, J. (2021). The effect of work stress on organizational commitment and
job satisfaction among employees. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 32(7), 1534–1556. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1809920
Lee, K., & Wang, C. (2020). The impact of work stress on employee performance and quiet
quitting: A focus on managerial factors. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 90(3), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102619
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (2020). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the
three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123–133.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123
Leka, S., Griffiths, A., & Cox, T. (2023). Work organization and stress: Systematic problem
approaches for employers, managers, and practitioners. World Health Organization,
12(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53704-7_3
Martinez, L., & Petrova, E. (2023). Digital transformation and work-life balance: Implications
for quiet quitting. Journal of Management Studies, 60(5), 1200–1225.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12916

JED | 640
 Unpacking the Quiet Quitting Phenomenon: The Role of Work Stress…
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2020). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research
and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20311
Miller, J., & Walker, S. B. (2023). Stress and disengagement: The link between work-life
balance and quiet quitting. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 59(2), 210–225.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886322112458
Nguyen, T., & Tran, M. (2023). Generation Z and work-life balance: Challenges and
strategies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(2), 321–339.
Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., Graham, M., & Weale, V. (2020). A rapid review of
mental and physical health effects of working at home: How do we optimise health?
BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09875-z
Pan, S., et al. (2022). The effects of work overload on employee well-being: A multi-sector
analysis. International Journal of Stress Management, 29(4), 220–233.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1809920
Pérez, L., & Romero, J. (2021). Flexible work arrangements: A solution to work-life balance
for millennials and Generation Z. Journal of Business Management, 15(4), 333–348.
Pratama, A. (2023). Quiet quitting in the retail industry: Factors contributing to reduced
employee engagement in Indonesia. Indonesian Management Research Institute,
3(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1809920
Qureshi, M. I., Iftikhar, M., Abbas, S. G., Hassan, U., Khan, K., & Zaman, K. (2023).
Relationship between job stress, workload, environment, and employees' turnover
intentions: What we know, what should we know. World Applied Sciences Journal,
23(6), 764–770. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.23.06.313
Ramadhi, R., Sarianti, K., & Desti, Y. (2023). Organizational commitment to mediate
workload and compensation on work productivity at Madina Bukittinggi Hospital.
Journal of Management, 6(3).
http://exsys.iocspublisher.org/index.php/JMAS/article/view/298
Rantanen, J. (2020). Workload and its impact on job stress: An empirical study in high-
pressure environments. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(1), 35–48.
Sari, R. (2023). The influence of work-life balance on employee well-being and the quiet
quitting phenomenon in Indonesian startups. Psychological Research Journal
Indonesia, 11(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1809920
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2020). Workload, stress, and employee burnout. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 105(3), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000432
Setiawan, A., & Nugroho, A. (2021). Work stress and its implications for job satisfaction
among Generation Z in Padang City. Indonesian Journal of Human Resource
Management, 10(2), 112–129.
Smith, J., & Lee, H. (2021). The impact of work-life balance on job satisfaction among young
professionals. International Journal of Business and Society, 22(1), 85–100.
Smith, P., Brown, K., & Turner, L. (2022). The impact of workload on quiet quitting among
Generation Z employees: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Business
Management, 37(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12345-022-00789-9
Spector, P. E. (2020). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice.
John Wiley & Sons, 3(1), 134–141.
Stygar, M., & Huffington, A. (2024). Gen Z and quiet quitting: A rational response to
workplace stress. Visier Insights, 14(2).
Tariq, A., Javed, S., & Shahzad, A. (2023). Work-life balance, workload, and employee well-
being: Insights from the service industry. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
28(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000235
Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2021). The job demands-resources model: A critical review.
Emerald Group Publishing, 3(1), 243–268.
Tiwari, A., Cassani, R., Narayanan, S., & Falk, T. H. (2019). A comparative study of stress
and anxiety estimation in ecological settings using a smart-shirt and a smart-bracelet.
Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in
Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS, 2213–2216.
https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2019.8857890

JED | 641
Ramadhi, Eko Fikriando, Donal Ortega, Barkhia Yunas, Relifra, Destia Ayu Lestari
Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2024

Tse, K., & Keshri, V. (2023). Redefining work-life balance: Quiet quitting movement among
Gen Z. Social Work, 69(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000235
Van Hooff, M. L. M., & Geurts, S. A. E. (2021). The role of work-life balance in reducing
work stress: A review. Work and Stress, 35(1), 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2021.1893727
Yadav, A., & Sharma, M. (2021). The impact of work-life balance on stress in the context of
Indian IT professionals. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
32(6). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1672531
Yildirim, D., et al. (2023). Workload, work-life balance, and employee stress: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(6). https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000920
Zhao, Y., & Wu, M. (2023). Work stress, workload, and employee engagement: A
systematic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(1), 14–29.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001077

JED | 642