July 06, 2026
Job Hugging: Why Low Turnover May Be Hiding a Disengagement Problem
Job hugging is leaving employees present but disengaged, and organisations that read this as healthy retention risk missing the cost to performance, culture and the customer experience.
People are increasingly clinging to their jobs out of fear rather than choice in a trend known as ‘job hugging’. Unlike ‘quiet quitting‘, which is driven by internal factors – like burnout and protecting work-life balance – job hugging is caused by external factors such as a cooling labour market and economic instability.
For organisations, job hugging is a disengagement risk hiding beneath seemingly healthy retention metrics, and recent data suggests the problem is getting worse.
Gartner HR found that less than half (48%) of job candidates accepted their most recent job offer, down from 54% in Q4 2024 and 85% in Q4 2023. This means it’s not only workers pausing their job search until the labour market recovers; even candidates at offer stage are cautious about moving.
The same survey found that 30% would prefer to stay in their current role due to economic volatility, even if offered a better position elsewhere. Among highly skilled workers, that figure rises to 39%.
A separate Gartner study, conducted earlier this year, found that employees’ intent to stay in their role has fallen by 19% over the past two years, suggesting that attrition will rise again once confidence in the job market improves.
Together, these numbers point to a clear job hugging pattern: low offer-acceptance rates, falling intent to stay, and continued labour market volatility. For many organisations, the risk is reading that stability as health, when it may actually be disengagement.
The HR Obsession With Retention Over Commitment
Perry Timms, founder and chief energy officer at People and Transformational HR, says the findings point to a fundamental confusion. “What concerns me in this report’s findings is that organisations often confuse movement with health,” he explains. “Low turnover has always been treated as a positive HR metric, but stability only tells you that people haven’t left.”
Organisations need to look further, questioning whether employees are showing discretionary effort, loyalty, innovation, and a genuine connection to the business. If they are staying for those reasons, that’s a healthy kind of retention. But, as Timms warns, if they’re not moving on because of fear or uncertainty, “that’s a very different kind of retention.”
It’s the type that leads to what Timms calls “passive organisational drag.” People in this psychologically disengaged position will still do their work and remain reasonably productive, but they won’t go above and beyond. They won’t push to innovate, solve problems, or create an exceptional customer experience. This lack of proactivity can cost organisations for months before HR spots it in the attrition figures.
Too much focus among CHROs is on retention as the ultimate success metric, Timms argues, when the real objective should be commitment. Instead of asking, “How do we keep people?” employers should ask, “Would our best people enthusiastically choose us again today?” It’s a harder question to answer, but a far more useful one.
Organisations that look beyond retention will, Timms believes, “continue earning people’s commitment even when fear wasn’t doing the work for them.”
How Job Hugging Differs From Genuine Commitment
There are clear signs that distinguish workers who are genuinely committed from those who are job hugging while the economic climate remains uncertain.
“People who are thriving tend to demonstrate curiosity,” says Hannah Gore, head of People EMEA and US at QS, the global higher education ranking firm. “They volunteer for projects, seek feedback, develop new skills, and actively contribute ideas. They aren’t simply doing their job well; they’re investing in their future within the organisation.”
Job huggers, on the other hand, will do their work but withdraw from anything beyond the basic requirements. They are less likely to come forward with creative ideas, speak up in meetings, or take on new development opportunities. “They’re still present, but psychologically they’ve begun to disengage,” Gore says.
Retention data alone will not differentiate between a job hugging employee and an invested one. HR leaders need to bring together data on engagement surveys, learning participation, internal mobility, career conversations, and manager observations to understand whether their workforce remains genuinely engaged.
How Employers Can Respond to Job Hugging
Job hugging cannot be solved with a single initiative. Gore highlights that employees need to “see a future” at the organisation, which requires multiple career pathways and development programmes.
QS is doing exactly that. “We’ve found that investing in leadership development, career ownership, and meaningful learning opportunities creates a much stronger sense of commitment than simply focusing on retention programmes,” Gore says.
Many organisations focus on better compensation and perks to build loyalty, without paying enough attention to people’s future prospects. Pay and perks matter, but not to the extent that purpose, development, and a compelling vision can be neglected.
“Those are the things that build genuine commitment over time,” Gore notes.
How Managers Can Spot Job Hugging Signs Early
The quality of conversations between managers and employees is critical to spotting someone who feels stuck. If one-to-ones focus only on work performance, and not on how the individual is experiencing the work, the problem gets missed.
Discussions about development and future aspirations help surface potential signals of withdrawal or demotivation. In these conversations, Gore notes that managers should watch for changes in energy, curiosity, and confidence, not just output decline.
“One of the questions I often encourage managers to ask is, ‘What have you learned recently that has excited you?’ If someone struggles to answer that consistently, it can be an early indication that they’re no longer growing, even if they’re still performing.”
The Impact of Job Hugging on the Customer Experience
When managers don’t go deeper in conversations with their team, and don’t spot the signs of an employee staying out of fear rather than choice, the effects eventually reach the customer experience.
As David Price, head of talent and CX at Wolferstans Solicitors, notes: “Disengagement rarely shows up as poor service overnight. It slowly becomes visible in the absence of discretionary effort.”
In customer-facing organisations, this looks like slower response times, a lack of ownership in solving problems, and functional conversations rather than relational ones.
“Processes can maintain service standards for a long time. What they can’t replicate is genuine care, curiosity, and initiative,” Price says. This is exactly what job hugging employees will struggle to provide for their customers.
Job hugging may not show up clearly in turnover figures, but it still harms the business, just more gradually and subtly.
As Price notes: “The biggest cost is often what doesn’t happen. Fewer ideas get shared, fewer risks get flagged, and fewer improvements get made. People focus on completing work rather than improving it.
“None of this shows up obviously in the figures, but over time it can have a bigger impact on performance, culture, and customer experience than people leaving.”
The impact on turnover figures may also be delayed rather than avoided, especially in organisations with weak leadership. As Timms points out: “In a buoyant labour market, poor management is quickly exposed because talented people leave. In a constrained market, the labour market is effectively subsidising poor leadership by reducing employees’ options.”
As a result, when the job market shifts and employees feel they have more choices, organisations with weak leadership are likely to face a turnover problem – one that has simply been delayed.
What This Means for Employers
Gore sums up the challenge simply: “Ultimately, organisations should worry less about whether people are staying, and more about whether they’re engaging and progressing. A workforce that isn’t growing today is much more likely to leave tomorrow, when the market changes.”
Job hugging may be masking a deeper retention problem, but it also points to the fix. Organisations that measure commitment rather than movement, and invest in growth rather than relying on a cautious labour market, will be better placed for their people and their customers when confidence returns.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is job hugging?
Job hugging is when employees stay in their current job primarily out of economic fear or uncertainty, rather than genuine commitment to their employer. It shows up as low job offer acceptance rates and falling intent to leave, even though many of these employees have psychologically disengaged.
Why are more employees job hugging right now?
Economic volatility and a slower labour market are making employees cautious about switching jobs. Gartner research found that only 48% of candidates accepted their most recent job offer, down from 85% in Q4 2023, as workers choose stability over risk.
How is job hugging different from healthy retention?
Healthy retention happens when employees stay because they feel committed, see a future at the organisation, and continue to contribute discretionary effort. Job hugging can look the same on paper, but employees stay out of fear while withdrawing from anything beyond their basic job requirements.
How can managers tell if an employee is job hugging?
Job huggers typically show declining curiosity, reduced participation in meetings, and reluctance to take on new development opportunities, even while still performing their core role. Regular career conversations that focus on growth and energy, not just output, help managers spot the difference.
How does job hugging affect the customer experience?
Job hugging reduces discretionary effort, which shows up in customer-facing roles as slower response times, less ownership of problems, and more transactional interactions. Because these effects build up gradually, they often go unnoticed until service quality has already been affected.
