Opinion: Have You Hugged Your Job Today?

Quiet Quitting was about doing as little as possible. The phenomenon has now been replaced by Job Hugging, where the focus is simply on staying physically present. This raises three key questions for us as leaders.

By Thomas Hanssen, CEO at CfL. The opinion piece was published in Finans on October 24, 2025

First came The Great Resignation, when employees around the world quit their jobs in massive numbers. Then came Quiet Quitting, where people kept their jobs but delivered only the bare minimum.

Now we’re seeing the rise of Job Hugging — and according to the international consulting and search firm Korn Ferry, the phenomenon is all about risk minimization: people stay in familiar roles because it feels safer than taking a chance on something new — especially in times when the job market seems uncertain.

It’s always debatable how strongly international trends take hold in the Danish labor market, but in the wake of large-scale layoffs at major Danish companies such as Ørsted, Novo Nordisk, and Norlys, as well as an expected significant reduction in the public workforce, the concept of Job Hugging is worth examining.

At the same time, geopolitical tension, economic uncertainty, and the AI boom are fueling fears about the future — and the result may well be that many employees remain in their current positions even if they’re not thriving. They stay out of fear, not desire.

This also applies to highly educated specialists. For example, a poll in the Facebook group “Lægejob og lægeliv” shows that the phenomenon is already recognized among many Danish doctors:

66% know a colleague who stays in a job they’re unhappy in.

21% know doctors who would like a new job but aren’t applying.

That’s why we’re now talking about Job Hugging.

Also read: Now Leaders Must Take Responsibility and Stop Harassing Behavior

At first glance, the advantages for companies seem obvious. Greater continuity in employment ensures that valuable knowledge about products and processes remains within the organization. Fewer resources need to be invested in recruitment and onboarding, and it becomes easier to maintain the company’s culture.

But do we really want employees who stay out of fear?

The text continues below the box

That question is currently being discussed in international journals, where three key risks stand out:

• Innovation to a halt: When employees stay in their jobs for too long, both their own and the company’s development and innovation stagnate. Changing jobs brings new perspectives and challenges that are essential for growth.

• Fear and stress are contagious: A single employee clinging to their job out of fear can trigger a domino effect. Anxiety and uncertainty can spread, resulting in an organization plagued by inertia and disengagement  
• Imagine this: turnover can also be too low. Many leaders complain about high turnover and a challenging job market, but a healthy level of employee movement creates dynamism. Employees who stay for the wrong reasons block opportunities for those who want to grow into new roles and advance their careers.

Three questions for you as a leader

Quiet Quitting was about doing as little as possible. Now that the phenomenon has been replaced by Job Hugging—where the focus is simply on staying physically present—it’s tempting to shrug it off as just another trend that may or may not take hold.

Regardless of the trend, the leadership challenge remains unchanged. The goal must be to create meaningful retention. It’s about building a workplace where employees choose to stay because they see a future—not because they fear the alternative.

This raises three key questions for leaders:

• Are you consciously creating a culture where people are motivated to perform and stay?
• Do you invest in internal development and opportunities for employees to grow within the organization?
• Do you measure why people stay—not just that they do?

It can all be boiled down to one question: Is your organization worth staying in—or simply too frightening to leave?

Also read:Soft or tough? When we talk about poor leadership, we miss the point