INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue XI November 2025

Loud Quitting in the Social Media Age: A Conceptual Study of

Disengagement in Public Employees

¹Niharika Gupta, ²Prof Ram Milan, ³Dr Akriti Jaiswal

¹Research Scholar, Department of Commerce, University of Lucknow

²Professor, Department of Commerce, University of Lucknow

³Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce, University of Lucknow

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12110100

Received: 25 November 2025; Accepted: 01 December 2025; Published: 10 December 2025

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to explore a new trend known as loud quitting, a modern method to show dissatisfaction publicly

on social media platforms. It looks at the forces that lead to disengagement, such as psychological contract

violations and perceived organisational injustice. This disengagement leads to an open and visible act of

expression, called loud quitting, which impacts the reputation and trust in the organisation. The study provides

a framework for understanding the relationship between disengagement and loud quitting, which is moderated

by social media-based impression management, drawing on Social Exchange Theory, Psychological Contract

Theory, and Impression Management Theory. It highlights how online voice and self-presentation shape

disengagement in current times.

Keywords: Loud Quitting, Social Media Age, Disengagement, Employee Voice, Public Employees, Social

Exchange Theory

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between employees and employers has changed significantly due to the current social media

age. These dramatic changes have blurred the line between employers and employees and changed the way

individuals interact in their private and professional arenas. The Social media platforms have changed the nature

and efficiency of communication (Beck, 2007). It has become the ubiquitous part of modern workplace

relationships (Ellerbrok, 2010; Jacobson and Howle Tufts, 2013). Meanwhile, disputes about what is acceptable

and appropriate to expose on social media are raising conflicts associated with social media dynamics within the

boundaries of employer-employee relationships (McDonald & Thompson, 2016). Now, employees use platforms

like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Blogs are used by employees to share their workplace experiences as well

as their disengagement or dissatisfaction (Miles & Mangold, 2014). This e-voice can be explosive like a bomb

waiting to explode when employees use these social media platforms to post negative comments about the

organization. As employees increasingly use social media to express their opinions as a voice, this information

goes beyond the limits of the internal communication system and reaches hundreds of people with just a few

keystrokes. This trend of employees using social media platforms to express their dissatisfaction with their jobs,

discuss their exit experiences, or criticize their employers is labelled as “Loud Quitting.”

Unlike passive disengagement, Loud Quitting involves openly sharing negative events and experiences directly

with everyone, including colleagues and superiors on social media (Yikilmaz & TARAKCI, 2023). Loud quitting

is more noticeable, damaging the reputation of the organization and hurting other existing employee’s trust as

well. It is a method of showing dissatisfaction with their work, their manager, the employing organisation, or

anyone who would listen (Hungerford et al. 2024). Loud quitting is not just a threat to resign, but also has the

potential to damage the output of the workplace and erode trust, by spreading dissatisfaction to other employees

(Gostik, 2023). As per “Gallup's State of the Global Workplace: 2025 Report”, there is a decline of two percent

Page 1105

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue XI November 2025

in global employees, which resulted in an estimated $438 billion in lost output for the global economy (Harter

& Pendell, 2025).

While quiet quitting is a passive way of showing disengagement and a quiet withdrawal caused by

dissatisfaction, loud quitting actively expresses dissatisfaction and is gaining attention, still in an emerging

phase. There is a sudden change from private disengagement to public protest, showing deeper problems between

employee and organisation relationships.

In the age of social media, this paper aims to explore the reasons and methods that pubic employees use to

engage in loud quitting and show disengagement. Public employees work in public organizations and

institutions. They are employed by the federal government, state government, or local bodies (United States

Code, 2025) and receive pay directly from the government for providing operations and services on their behalf

(Woo, 2022). Public employees act as a public face for their government organization, making their online

behaviour or expression of any negative event or disengagement have an impact on a large scale. Such actions

can damage the organization's reputation and affect public confidence. Despite growing interest, there is still a

lack of academic understanding regarding loud quitting, especially concerning public employees.

This paper aims to theorize loud quitting as a modern form of disengagement, shown with the help of social

media in this digital era, and connects organisational unfairness, unfulfilled expectations, and emotional

disengagement to an increasing number of loud quitting behaviours among public employees, building on Social

Exchange Theory, Psychological Contract Theory, and Impression Management Theory. The purpose of this

paper is to provide a conceptual or theoretical framework on Loud quitting, which will describe the causes,

process, and outcomes of loud quitting by public employees within public organizations.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Social Media and Employee Voice

The digitization and rapid explosion of social media have transformed the way people interact and communicate

with each other (Holland et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2015; Mennie, 2015), altered workplace communication

norms, and opened up new avenues for employees to express themselves. Social media has emerged as a

powerful tool to foster communication and collaboration within the organization (Young and Hinesly, 2014). It

allows people to connect, driven by a fundamental human urge to exchange information with each other (Ghani

& Malik, 2023). In today's digitalised world, businesses are using social media to help their staff and stay

competitive (Walker, 2020). With the growth of social media, people's capacity to express their opinions has

grown alongside (Dreher, 2014). The use of social media platforms as a voice platform (Conway et al., 2019;

Balnave et al., 2014) to express opinions, concerns, and dissatisfaction regarding work or organizational issues

by employees has increased (Ghani & Malik, 2023). Employee voice is ‘the ways and means through which

employees attempt to have a say and potentially influence organisational affairs about issues that affect their

work and the interests of managers and owners’ as defined by Wilkinson et al. (2014). Employee voice

‘describes how employees concerns, express, and advance interests, solve problems, and contribute to and

participate in workplace decision-making’ (Pyman et al., 2006)

Social media has redefined the boundary of employee voice expressed through social media platforms. The

emergence of social media immediately disseminates information to a worldwide audience and is altering how

employees communicate, which is frequently outside management's control (Holland et al. 2018). Social media

platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and other social media channels allow employees to share their experiences

and convey their attitudes towards their organizations (Barnes et al. 2018). As compared to the past, the

expressive repertoire of employees has been transformed by the digital era, resulting in a more collaborative,

visible, and open environment (Samdanis & Lee, 2017). Employees seek validation, express their frustration,

or draw attention to injustice with the help of social media platforms. Prior studies indicate that digital tools

enhance employee participation in decision-making procedures, create opportunities for more e-voices, and

reduce the expenses associated with information reproduction and dissemination (DiMaggio et al. 2001).

Sharing information worldwide by employees can risk the organization's reputation and public trust. According

Page 1106

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue XI November 2025

to Gallup, one out of every five employees is now a loud quitter (Gostik, 2023). In this context, the traditional

idea that employee voice is internal is no longer valid.

This change has special ramifications for the public sector that influence how public employees interact with

these resources (Kim and Lee, 2006). The most popular social media platforms in public administration are

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, Flickr, and LinkedIn (Criado, 2013). Public employees are expected to

demonstrate political neutrality, professionalism, and loyalty (Rothstein & Sorak, 2017). But when public

employees use social media to criticize policies, leaders, or workplace practices, their digital expressions might

contrast with bureaucratic norms and public trust. Sobaci & Karkin (2013) found that Turkish mayors have

started using this social media platform to send private messages, share information, and disclose their location

as well as their political activity, which conflicts with privacy norms. Use of social media involves risks of online

posting and sharing negative information (Millham & Atkin, 2016), which raises privacy concerns. Public

employees with their dual responsibilities as citizens and government employees are probably more concerned

about privacy in the workplace. In reaction, it is assumed that public employees will be less inclined to use social

media at work (DiMicco et al. 2008).

This dispute between organizational norms and freedom of speech arises against the backdrop of loud quitting,

a public and largely visible act of disengagement. Thus, Social media transforms not only the way in which

employee voice is expressed, but also changes the audience by expressing their dissatisfaction or disengagement

directly to the public instead of the internal workplace.

Theoretical Foundations

A conceptual understanding of Loud quitting requires a multidisciplinary approach that links employee

disengagement, organizational relationships, and public self-expression in the social media age. Dissatisfaction

is not the only factor that leads to disengagement, but is caused by many other issues like work burden, lack of

work–life balance, lack of pay & benefits, lack of opportunities, or support for career progression, misalignment

between organisational mission and values, and other workplace issues like favouritism, poor communication of

goals or deadlines for the work (Hungerford, 2024), which drives loud quitting. Therefore, the phenomenon of

loud quitting is not simply an act of showing disengagement but a complex behavioral response involving

perceived unfairness, emotional detachment, and strategic public communication that represents how employees

choose to share their organizational experiences with a wider audience through social media platforms. The

factor that prompts an employee to choose quiet quitting (a safer form of disengagement) over loud quitting is

the reason for the disengagement (Hungerford, 2024).

The traditional theories of disengagement assume that disengagement stays within the organisational borders in

the form of internal withdrawal or reduced effort, but in the age of social media, it is shown publicly in a more

visible form. According to Gallup's State of the Global Workplace (2023), approximately 18% of workers

worldwide are actively disengaged, known as "loud quitters," demonstrating a real and expanding trend of

notable disengagement. Public employees no longer work behind closed doors, and their voices spread

worldwide, impacting both internal culture as well as external reputation.

This research uses three interconnected theories - Social Exchange Theory, Psychological Contract Theory, and

Impression Management Theory to explain this shift from silent disengagement to visible expression. This offers

a comprehensive understanding of the reasons for employee’s disengagement, the way this disengagement

triggers public expression, and the reasons for considering social media as a preferred medium for expression.

Social Exchange Theory (SET): Social exchange theory is one of the most important conceptual frameworks

that interprets workplace behaviour (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Its origin can be traced back to the 1920s

(Malinowski, 1922; Mauss, 1925). It bridges the fields of social psychology (Gouldner, 1960; Homans, 1958;

Thibault & Kelley, 1959), sociology (Blau, 1964), and anthropology (Firth, 1967; Sahlins, 1972). Social

exchange theory is based on three fundamental pillars: exchange rules and norms, resources transferred, and

emerging relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). According to Blau (1964), social exchange relates to

the behaviors that depend on the positive actions of others, whereas exchange behaviours are the voluntary

actions that are driven by expected returns or rewards. It is based on the principle of Reciprocity that exchange

Page 1107

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue XI November 2025

tangible and intangible resources, such as trust, respect, loyalty, and recognition. According to this theory, when

one party gives another a valuable and beneficial resource, it creates an obligation to give a beneficial resource

back in return (Mitchell et al. 2012). Thus, an individual possesses several interdependent actions that create an

obligation (Blau 1964; Emerson 1976; Homans 1958). This results in positive reactions like dedication,

engagement, and citizenship when employee’s contributions are valued, appreciated, and rewarded fairly. But

when this reciprocal cycle is broken due to negative experiences like unfair treatment, lack of attention, or

organizational neglect, employees show negative reactions like withdrawing and increasing disengagement, or

turnover intentions.

This theory explains the shift from merely reducing efforts to a safer form of disengagement, like quietly

disengaging, to openly expressing dissatisfaction through loud quitting. Employees look for other ways to restore

the reciprocity cycle when the organization fails to provide valuable resources. Social media platforms give

workers a space to share negative experiences, voice complaints, seek support, or address perceived injustices

publicly. This becomes more complex in the context of public organizations, which emphasize

political neutrality, professionalism, and loyalty (Rothstein & Sorak, 2017). When these values are broken,

employees may feel a stronger sense of relationship violation, leading to loud quitting as a method to express

disappointment. By expressing disengagement, employees attempt to balance an unfair exchange by controlling

their story and shaping how the public perceives the situation.

Psychological Contract Theory: The concept of psychological contract was coined in the 1960s (Argyris,

1960). The history of psychological contract theory is associated with Rousseau’s (1989), which describes the

relationship between employee and organisation, shaped by a set of expectations and unspoken promises. ‘The

psychological contract is individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange

agreement between the individual and their organization’ (Rousseau, 1995, p. 9). The underlying assumption of

the relationship between parties is that each party will exchange something they can offer for something they

can get in return (Conway & Briner, 2011).

The traditional theory explains the behaviour of employees by focusing on the degree to which an employee

feels their employer has fulfilled the promises (Conway & Briner, 2011). When the promise is fulfilled,

employees respond with like job satisfaction, higher trust, commitment, and engagement. In contrast, a broken

promise leads to withdrawal behaviors and reduced performance. The psychological contract violation is

significantly useful in understanding the loud quitting phenomenon. An organisation that fails to meet

expectations and promises, such as fair representation, open communication, and appreciating employee’s work,

prompts employees to express their disengagement and displeasure by loud quitting. Loud Quitting is like a form

of psychological revenge. Hence, loud quitting reflects deterioration of the relationship between the employee

and the organization.

The psychological contracts involve the commitment to show and exchange high moral standards like honesty,

stability, and public accountability in the case of public employees. When an organisation breaks these standards

through bureaucratic inefficiencies, lack of recognition, or political interference, public employees may feel

more morally wronged in comparison to the private sector’s employees. This violation enhances the desire to

express publicly and seek public expression of their grievances, instead of complaining within the organisation

to damage the organization's reputation and regain their own feeling of autonomy and integrity.

Impression Management Theory: In the late 1950s, scholars began to explore impression management

(Tedeschi, 2013). Goffman's book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), was a groundbreaking

study to understand this theory. According to Goffman, impression management is a component of the social

system, where behaviour is a reaction to both internal standards and external demands for self-identification

(Tedeschi, 2013). It is the process by which people manage the impressions that people form of them, which

involves two steps. At first, people are involved in impression motivation, which is the extent to which people

are motivated to influence other’s perception of themselves own and the second step involves impression

construction, which tells about the type of impression people attempt to create in others (Leary & Kowalski,

1990). Employees use impression management in work environments to keep a positive reputation in front of

colleagues, superiors, and the organization as a whole, aiming to appear capable, devoted, loyal, or professional

Page 1108

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue XI November 2025

In the age of social media, the boundaries of impression management extended from the traditional office setting

to the online worldwide space. Employees use social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and

Blogs (Miles & Mangold, 2014) to showcase their professional identities, express values, and engage in public

discourse. This creates impressions in the minds of the public that either support or contradict organizational

relationships. In this viewpoint, loud quitting is a type of impression management. Employees use criticism or

public resignation posts to influence how others view their departure and shape perceptions about it.

From this viewpoint, loud quitting is not just a way to show disengagement, but also a form of expressive

communication. Employees try to project an image of honesty, courage, or ethical resistance to perceived

injustice. They seek validation and support by sharing their public expressions. For public employees who work

for the government (Woo, 20220), their online actions can affect their personal reputation but also the legitimacy

of their organisation. When employees show loud quitting behaviour, it signals justice, ethics, or transparency

issues within the public sector. Thus, the social media statements from public employees expressing

disengagement or dissatisfaction can act as both self-protective acts and public accountability claims. Therefore,

Impression Management theory helps to explain the visibility and symbolic meaning of loud quitting actions.

Conceptual Framework and Propositions of Loud Quitting

The proposed conceptual model integrates Social Exchange Theory, Psychological Contract Theory, and

Impression Management Theory to explain how public employees engage in loud quitting behaviour in today’s

social media age. According to the framework, loud quitting is a multidimensional and complex reaction to

unmet psychological expectations, perceived organisational injustices, and the growing impact of digital self-

expression.

The Social Exchange theory says that employees feel a violation of the reciprocity cycle when their efforts are

not fairly compensated for by the company. and there is an imbalance between the employee’s contribution and

the organisation’s reward through lack of recognition, unfair treatment, or limited growth opportunities. This

leads to an imbalance between what the employee contributes and what the organization rewards, often due to a

lack of recognition, unfair treatment, or limited growth options. This imbalance reduces the commitment and

increases disengagement possibilities, which results in loud quitting.

The Psychological Contract theory suggests that emotional discomfort and a loss of confidence arise from

psychological contract violations. These violations occur when workers believe that the company has not

fulfilled its unspoken commitments. Such violations typically lead to quiet quitting or turnover intentions. In the

age of social media, employees are more inclined to use these platforms to express perceived injustices and seek

moral validation.

Additionally, Impression Management Theory explains the public nature through which loud quitting can be

understood. Employees utilize social media platforms to reconstruct their identity and restore their reputation,

making their act of quitting a public statement through loud quitting. This act of public expression assists them

in managing how the public, employers, and peers view their exit.

Based on this conceptual framework, perceived organisational injustice and psychological contract violations

trigger employee disengagement, which further aggravates the need for social validation and image restoration

on social media, ultimately leading to loud quitting. Public employees who work in a moral and service-oriented

environment may experience this phenomenon more intensely as their organisational image is connected with

civic values and public accountability.

Proposed Relationships and Propositions:

The combination of these perspectives leads to a more comprehensive understanding of Loud Quitting.

Proposition 1: Perceived organizational injustice is positively associated with employee disengagement among

public employees (Supported by Social Exchange Theory: Imbalance in reciprocity leads to withdrawal).

Page 1109

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue XI November 2025

Proposition 2: Psychological contract violation increases employees’ intention to express dissatisfaction

publicly (Supported by Psychological Contract Theory: Breach leads to emotional response and retaliatory

expression).

Proposition 3: Employee disengagement mediates the relationship between organizational injustice and loud

quitting behavior (Disengagement acts as the psychological process through which dissatisfaction is expressed).

Proposition 4: Social media use for impression management moderates the relationship between disengagement

and loud quitting, such that employees with higher online visibility or self-presentation motives are more likely

to engage in loud quitting.

(Explained through Impression Management Theory: Public expression as image control.)

The framework sees Loud Quitting as not just an impulsive action, but an act of disengagement that is influenced

by relationship breaches (Social Exchange theory and Psychological Contract Theory) and the motive to build

image in public (Impression Management Theory).

Proposed Conceptual Model

The conceptual model intends to show the relationship between organizational injustice, psychological contract

violation, employee disengagement, social media–based impression management, and loud quitting behavior

among public employees by incorporating ideas from Social Exchange Theory, Psychological Contract Theory,

and Impression Management Theory.

The main causes of employee disengagement are perceived organisational injustice and a breach of the

psychological contract. Public employees lose trust and emotional attachment with the organisation when they

face injustice, neglect, or broken implicit promises. This imbalance disturbs the relationship between the

employee and the organisation, undermining teamwork and increasing disengagement. This is rooted in Social

Exchange Theory and Psychological Contract Theory. Employee Disengagement acts as a mediator, turning

negative perception into actions. Disengaged workers are less likely to make positive contributions and often

seek ways to express their frustration. Loud Quitting, a visible and outspoken resignation, reflects this internal

disengagement on social media.

Social media-based impression management is a moderating factor that plays a role in how disengagement is

expressed on social media. Workers who share more online, having a strong social media presence, are more

likely to voice their disengagement to craft an image of being principled and authentic. This behavior supports

Impression Management theory that suggests people attempt to shape how other people see them, especially

during career transitions or events that might harm their reputation. Finally, Loud Quitting is the end result of

disengagement. It is an act of disengagement to show dissatisfaction, criticism, and moral position against

organisational justice. These actions indicate disengagement with leadership ethics or bureaucratic systems for

public employees.

(Applied within Public

Perceived

Organizational

Injustice

Sector Context)

Employee

Loud Quitting

Disengagement

Psychological

Contract Violation

Moderated by Social Media–based Impression

Management

Page 1110

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue XI November 2025

Theoretical Contributions

It extends Social Exchange theory and Psychological Contract theory to the social media context. This study

conceptualizes loud quitting as a modern and public expression of exchange disruption. It changes the view of

disengagement from a silent withdrawal to an expressive reaction on social media.

By using Impression Management Theory, the study adds a new aspect of digital self-presentation in relation to

employee quit behavior. It connects employee disengagement to employee voice, digital visibility, and self-

presentation. The study describes how workers use social media to control their image, defend their choices, and

obtain social approval.

The study adds to the literature on public administration by exploring this phenomenon in the context of public

employees. It highlights the challenges public employees face. It shows how violations of moral and service-

oriented psychological contracts can lead to an obvious, value-driven disengagement.

Practical Implications

The study offers a practical insight for organisations, and firstly, it stresses the importance and advantage of

having a clear grievance procedure for complaints, responsive leadership, effective internal communication, and

feedback mechanisms. This will act as a precaution and will make employees feel heard before their frustration

and disengagement turn into a public act.

Organizations should monitor employee opinion on digital platforms and use it as a tool for organisational

learning rather than just a threat. Employee opinions and feedback can help organisations in making their

workplace more fair, recognized, and credible.

The framework also signals to reshape expectations through fairness, respect, and open communication that will

increase the trust and commitment of employees towards the organisation and help it in its growth in the long

run.

At last, the study suggests that leaders and organisations to effectively manage online employee voice. This

implication can help organizations in turning threats into opportunities to build trust and credibility.

Future Research Directions

The future research should test the given framework in real-world settings with the help of surveys, experiments,

or case studies in various public organizations.

A comparative analysis can be done with respect to public as well as private employees to increase the

generalizability of the study and conceptual framework.

The future research should examine the platform dynamics of different social media platforms like LinkedIn,

Twitter, or Instagram.

At last, Longitudinal studies could be done to look at the long-term effects of loud quitting on workplace culture,

employee career outcomes, and organisational reputation, while studying mediators like perceived injustice,

emotional weariness, or organisational silence on the other side to understand this phenomenon better.

CONCLUSION

The conceptual paper explores the rising issue of Loud Quitting among public employees in the current social

age and provides an integrative framework based on Social Exchange Theory, Psychological Contract Theory,

and Impression Management Theory. Based on this paper, the primary drivers of Loud Quitting are the desire

for digital self-expression, perceived organisational injustice, and psychological contract. By using

Page 1111

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue XI November 2025

organizational theories with the realities of social media visibility and openness, this paper explores how

employees express dissatisfaction in the modern age. The paper helps to understand the factors that lead to

disengagement and take the form of public expression instead of being limited to organizational boundaries.

If the employees of the organisation show loud quitting behaviours, that indicates the existence of deeper issues

that need attention. Loud quitting indicates deeper issues that need attention in public organizations, where

integrity, responsibility, and trust are essential. The paper offers a new theoretical framework by presenting

employee disengagement as a relational, psychological, and communicative process shaped by the digital age,

which will help in the growth and development of public organizations by focusing simultaneously on the

organization’s reputation as well as employee voice in the form of loud quitting through social media platforms.

REFERENCES

1. Argyris, C. (1960), Understanding Organizational Behaviour, Tavistock Publications, London.

2. Balnave, N., A. Barnes, C. MacMillan, and L. Thornthwaite. 2014. “E-voice: How Network and Media

Technologies are Shaping Employee Voice.” In Handbook of Research on Employee Voice, edited by A.

Wilkinson, J. Donaghey, R. Freeman, and T. Dundon. (pp. 437-452). Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.

3. Barnes, A., Balnave, N., Thornthwaite, L., & Manning, B. (2018). Social media: Union communication

and member voice. In Employee voice at work (pp. 91-111). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

4. Beck, A. (2007). Web 2.0: Konzepte, Technologie, Anwendungen. HMD – Praxis der

Wirtschaftsinformatik. 44 (255), 5-16.

5. Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.

6. Conway, E., P. Rosati, K. Monks, and T. Lynn. 2019. “Voicing Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

through Twitter: Employees’ Use of Cyberspace.” New Technology, Work and Employment 34: 139–

156.

7. Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: Acritical evaluation

of theory and research. Oxford University Press.

8. Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2009). Fifty years of psychological contract research: what do we know

and what are the main challenges?. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 71-

130.

9. Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social

media. Government information quarterly, 30(4), 319-326.

10. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal

of management, 31(6), 874-900.

11. Definition: public employee from 18 USC § 716(c)(4) | LII / Legal Information Institute. (n.d.).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-

USC-1901771397-855527186&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:33:section:716

12. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the

internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.307

13. DiMicco J., Millen D. R., Geyer W., Dugan C., Brownholtz B., Muller M. (2008). Motivations for social

networking at work. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative

Work (pp. 711-720). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460674

14. Dreher, S. 2014. “Social Media and the World of Work.” Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, doi:10.1108/CCIJ-10-2013-0087

15. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2 , 335–362.

16. Firth, R. 1967. Themes in economic anthropology. London: Tavistock.

17. Fusi, F., & Zhang, F. (2018). Social Media Communication in the Workplace: Evidence From Public

Employees’

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18804016 (Original work published 2020)

18. Gallup, Inc. (2021). State of the Global Workplace Report.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx

Networks.

Review

of

Public

Personnel

Administration,

40(2),

245-271.

In

Gallup.com.

19. Ghani, B., & Malik, M. A. R. (2023). Social media and employee voice: a comprehensive literature

review. Behaviour & Information Technology, 42(14), 2407-2427.

20. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday.

Page 1112

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue XI November 2025

21. Gostik,

A.

(2023).

How

Managers

Can

Overcome

Loud

Quitting.

Avaliable

at:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adriangostick/2023/06/15/how-managers-can-overcome-

loudquitting/?sh=2d02c74b1720

22. Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: Apreliminary statement. American Sociological Review,

25: 161-178.

23. Harter, J., & Pendell, R. (2025). Global engagement falls for the second time since 2009. Gallup.com.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/659279/global-engagement-falls-second-time-2009.aspx

(23.04.2023)

24. Holland, P., Cooper, B., & Hecker, R. (2019). Social media at work:Anew form of employee voice? In P.

Holland, J. Teicher, & J. D. Donaghey (Eds.), Employee voice at work. Work, organization, and

employment (pp. 73–89). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2820-6_4

25. Holland, P., Teicher, J., & Donaghey, J. (2018). Employee voice at work. In Work, organization, and

employment. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2820-6

26. Holland, P., Teicher, J., & Donaghey, J. (2018b). Employee voice at work. In Work, organization, and

employment. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2820-6

27. Homans, G. C. 1958. Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63: 597-606.

28. Hungerford, C., Jackson, D., & Cleary, M. (2024). Quiet quitting, resenteeism and other forms of

disengagement: What are the answers for nurses. J. Adv. Nurs, 81, 2855-2857.

29. Jackson, S. (2023). Nearly 1 in 5 workers are “loud quitting” their jobs, a new Gallup poll says — and

it’s way more extreme than “quiet quitting.” Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-

loud-quitting-job-definition-2023-6 (29.06.2023)

30. Kim S., Lee H. (2006). The impact of organizational context and information technology on employee

knowledge-sharing capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66, 370-385.

31. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-

component model. Psychological bulletin, 107(1), 34.

32. Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure

in the archipel-agoes of Melansian New Guinea. London: Routledge.

33. Martensen, M., Börgmann, K., & Bick, M. (2011). The Impact of social networking sites on the

employer-employee relationship.

34. Martin, G., Parry, E., & Flowers, P. (2015). Do social media enhance constructive employee voice all of

the time or just some of the time? Human Resource Management Journal, 25(4), 541–

562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12081

35. Mauss, M. 1925. The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. New York: The Norton

Library.

36. McDonald, P., & Thompson, P. (2016). Social media (tion) and the reshaping of public/private boundaries

in employment relations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(1), 69-84.

37. Mennie, P. (2015). Social media risk and governance: Managing enterprise risk. Kogan Page Limited.

38. Miles, S. J., & Mangold, W. G. (2014). Employee voice: untapped resource or social media time

bomb?. Business Horizons, 57(3), 401-411.

39. Millham M. H., Atkin D. (2018). Managing the virtual boundaries: Online social networks, disclosure,

and privacy behaviors. New Media & Society, 20, 50-67.

40. Mitchell, M. S., Cropanzano, R. S., & Quisenberry, D. M. (2012). Social exchange theory, exchange

resources, and interpersonal relationships: A modest resolution of theoretical difficulties. In Handbook

of social resource theory: Theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social applications (pp. 99-118).

New York, NY: Springer New York.

41. Pyman, A., Cooper, B., Teicher, J., & Holland, P. (2006). A comparison of the effectiveness of employee

voice

arrangements

in

Australia. Industrial

Relations

Journal, 37(5), 543–

559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2338.2006.00419.x

42. Rothstein, B., & Sorak, N. (2017). Ethical codes for the public administration. A comparative survey.

43. Rousseau, D.M. (1995) Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten

Agreements. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

44. Rousseau, D.M. (1989) Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities

and Rights Journal, 2, 121–39.

Page 1113

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNO V A T ION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |V o lume XII Issue XI November 2025

45. Rousseau, D.M. (1998) The ‘problem’ of the psychological contract considered. JourQ62 nal of

Organizational Behavior, 19, 665–71.

46. Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in

predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational behavior and

human decision processes, 89(1), 925-946.

47. Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone age economics. New York: Aldine.

48. Samdanis, M., & Lee, S. H. (2017). White space and digital remediation of design practice in

architecture: A case study of Frank O. Gehry. Information and Organization, 27(2), 73–86.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.02.001

49. Tedeschi, J. T. (Ed.). (2013). Impression management theory and social psychological research.

Academic Press.

50. Thibault, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. 1959. The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley.

51. United

States

Code.

(2025).

18

U.S.C.

§

716(c)(4).

Retrieved

from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/716

52. Walker, M. 2020. “Successful Social Media Resistance: Implications for Employee Voice.” Labour &

Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work 30 (2): 174–184.

53. Wilkinson A, J Donaghey, T Dundon and R Freeman (2014) Employee voice: charting new terrain. In A

Wilkinson, J Donaghey, T Dundon and R Freeman (eds) The handbook of research on employee

voice, 3–16. Edward Elgar Press, London, UK.

54. Woo, K.H. (2022). Public Employment and Representative Bureaucracy. In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global

Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_3238

55. Yikilmaz, I., & TARAKCI, A. P. D. H. D. (2023). Loud quitting vs. quiet quitting: a concetual

investigation. In Business Journal 2nd International Paris Social Sciences Congress, December.

56. Young, A. M., and M. D. Hinesly. 2014. “Social Media use to Enhance Internal Communication: Course

Design for Business Students.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 77 (4): 426–439.

Page 1114