anomie in the workplace - understanding the modern drift
how 'anomie' explains modern workplace phenomena like quiet quitting and boreout, driven by fluid identities and outdated organizational structures
We’re constantly coining new terms for the same underlying issue: “quiet quitting,” “boreout,” and a host of others. These aren’t just fads; they’re symptoms of a deeper problem: anomie.
It’s tempting to blame external factors or specific environments, and they certainly play a role. However, the root cause is often the profound social shifts we’re navigating. For decades, work was a core pillar of identity. You were a doctor, an engineer, a factory worker. Your career path was often linear, offering a clear connection between education, profession, and self-definition.
Today, that stability is gone. Social structures are fluid, change is constant, and professional identities are no longer fixed. The result? A significant loss of clarity and stability. This leads directly to that pervasive feeling of being adrift—what sociology calls anomie: a lack of clear direction, purpose, or defined rules.
Consider the recent discussions about Gen Z’s approach to leadership, sparked by a recent newspaper article. This debate, while important, risks staying superficial. The real issue isn’t generational; it’s structural. The “liquid identities” of today’s workforce clash with outdated organizational frameworks. We’ve moved past fixed careers and clear, vertical hierarchical structures, yet many companies operate as if nothing has changed.
This is where the recruitment process itself often falls short. Many companies still approach hiring by seeking “parts for a machine that no longer exists,” rather than focusing on the agility and transversal skills that are truly needed. They persist in crystallized job profiles, disconnected from the current and future reality of work. This often reflects a lack of strategic thinking about competencies, leading to CV screening processes that are reductive and blind to the very transferable skills that could bring immense value. Without adequate training or strategic vision, those screening CVs often lack the capacity to identify these “liquid identity” talents — precisely the agility and innovation capacity that organizations so desperately need in this new era.
The arrival of Artificial Intelligence is absolutely crucial here. AI can be a brutal accelerator for the need for reformulation. However, in companies that haven’t reflected on their own architecture, the advent of AI risks widening the gap and increasing anomie, instead of becoming a “companion.” Its adoption will demand a profound effort of reformulation and rethinking from companies — not just at the process level, but also in the very definition of roles, responsibilities, and collaboration models. For many organizations, especially SMEs and even larger ones, this is a major challenge, as many still lack a structured reflection on their organizational architecture or strategic competency development. In practice, they are light-years away from the maturity needed to effectively integrate these new technologies as true “companions” in their daily business.
The challenge is clear: most organizational structures haven’t adapted to this new social reality. The old paradigm—where individuals were expected to conform to the organization—is obsolete. The path forward demands an inversion: organizations must adapt to individuals, embracing their evolving identities and aspirations.
True readiness for the future means building systems where people and organizations collaborate, challenging traditional leadership hierarchies, and collectively pursuing objectives. Only then can we bridge the gap created by this modern anomie.
Articles that Prompted this Reflection (in Portuguese)
[1] - Expresso - Z Generation does not want to lead [2] - CNN - There is a new risk associated to work: the boreout