By June Ramli
Millions of workers have, at some point, dreamed of walking away from a job that’s left them exhausted, unfulfilled or simply burnt out. But what happens when you’re ready to quit and have no financial safety net, no new role lined up, and no clear idea of what comes next?
In the second part of DailyStraits.com’s exclusive email interview with psychologist Zahra Ciardi, we explore the psychology behind feeling trapped at work, the difference between wanting to escape and wanting to solve a problem, and why fear often keeps people in jobs they’ve long outgrown. Drawing on established psychological research, Ciardi offers practical, evidence-based advice for anyone weighing one of the biggest career decisions they’ll ever make—whether to stay, leave, or find a better way forward. Read the full interview below.
For someone who wants to leave a job immediately but has no financial cushion or next role lined up, what’s the difference between “I need to escape” and “I need to fix this”?
Lazarus and Folkman’s research on coping delineates this distinction. Problem-focused coping targets the source of stress directly, whereas emotion-focused coping manages the emotional distress itself. The latter tends to predominate when individuals perceive the situation as beyond their control. The statement “I need to escape” exemplifies emotion-focused coping, while “I need to fix this” reflects problem-focused coping, which presupposes that some aspects of the situation remain actionable.
The absence of a financial cushion or next job often shifts coping strategies in unexpected ways. Although financial insecurity might seem to require careful, problem-focused planning, it often leads to the opposite. Limited resources are usually perceived as reduced control, which is a known driver of emotion-focused coping. In these situations, individuals are not only trying to leave the job but also to escape the ongoing stress of financial entrapment. These pressures often combine into a general sense of “I need out.”
It is important to separate these issues, as they require different responses. Whether the job is fixable depends on identifying specific problems rather than viewing everything as an issue. Financial precarity is a distinct and addressable factor, and recognizing it as such can make “I need to escape” more manageable. Someone without a financial cushion is correct in feeling they have less flexibility. The appropriate response is a more focused and deliberate plan, not abandoning planning entirely, which is often the default under pressure.
What would you say to someone staying out of fear rather than choice — how do they tell the two apart?
Self-determination theory, developed by Deci and Ryan, offers a precise way to separate these, because it doesn’t classify motivation as simply present or absent. It places motivation on a continuum from autonomous, acting from genuine endorsement and choice, through to controlled, acting because of external or internalised pressure. The relevant point on that continuum here is what’s called introjected regulation: behaviour driven by a sense of “should,” often to avoid guilt, anxiety, or a hit to self-worth. What makes introjected regulation distinct is that it’s internally felt but externally caused. The person experiences the pressure as coming from inside them, yet it doesn’t actually originate from their own values. It originates from fear of a consequence.
This is the practical distinction. Staying by choice usually sounds like a reasoned trade-off: for example, staying because the role offers learning opportunities or the financial terms are preferable. Staying out of fear often takes the form of “should” statements disguised as decisions: I should stay because I would not find another job, I should stay because leaving would be irresponsible, or I should stay because I am not entitled to leave. While these statements appear rational, the underlying motivation is avoidance.
I would advise someone in this situation to stop asking whether they should stay or leave, as this question reinforces a fear-based mindset. Instead, they should identify what specifically they fear would happen if they left. Vague concerns such as “everything would fall apart” indicate that fear is driving the decision. A specific answer, such as “I would have four months of expenses covered and no job offer yet,” provides a basis for planning. The fear does not need to disappear for clarity; it only needs to be defined clearly enough to stop influencing the entire decision.
Is there a way to genuinely re-engage with a job you’ve mentally already quit, or is that usually just delaying the inevitable?
Psychological contract research is the most useful frame here. Every employee holds an implicit set of expectations about what the job owes them beyond the formal contract. When those expectations get breached, the research consistently links it to disengagement and rising turnover intention. “Mentally quit” is essentially the lived experience of a psychological contract that’s been broken.
Whether re-engagement is genuinely possible seems to depend less on how disengaged someone currently feels and more on how they’re attributing the breach. Recent research on trust trajectories after a breach found two distinct patterns. Some employees experience ongoing trust erosion and disengage entirely. Others experience a slower accumulation of reduced trust, staying guarded and hesitant, without a full exit. What separates the two is attribution: whether the person reads the breach as intentional and systemic, something built into how the organisation operates, or as a specific, bounded event that could plausibly be addressed. A breach read as systemic tends to keep eroding trust regardless of what happens next, because nothing that changes feels like it touches the actual cause. A breach read as specific leaves room for the relationship to be renegotiated.
In practice, the first question should not be “do I still care about this job,” but rather “what exactly broke, and is it fixable?”
If the answer identifies a specific issue, such as a change in role without consultation, an unfulfilled promise, or a particular manager relationship, there is an opportunity for meaningful discussion and potential re-engagement. If the answer is more general, such as “the entire culture does not meet my needs,” this suggests a systemic issue, and attempts to re-engage often only postpone an inevitable departure.
What are the practical, non-dramatic first steps for someone in that stuck spot — resentful, unable to leave, not sure how to re-commit either?
Prochaska and DiClemente’s stages of change model refers to this as the contemplation stage, and recognizing it as such is important. Contemplation is not indecision; it is characterized by genuine ambivalence, where the pros and cons of leaving are balanced, reflecting the resentful-but-stuck experience described here. Research shows that forcing action before addressing this ambivalence often backfires, which is why “just decide already” is rarely effective advice.
The decisional balance tool from this research offers a practical first step. Instead of asking “should I stay or go,” which keeps the options vague, write out the specific pros and cons of staying and the specific pros and cons of leaving, creating four separate lists. Most people in this situation have only considered these factors mentally and often at stressful times. Writing them down helps clarify which specific issues are causing resentment, which is more actionable than focusing on the resentment itself.
From there, take three practical steps. First, identify specific grievances rather than general dissatisfaction, as specificity makes issues addressable. Second, select one grievance and test whether it is negotiable by having a direct conversation or requesting a change in scope, rather than assuming the entire role is unchangeable. Third, begin preparing for a potential departure regardless of the outcome, such as updating your CV, assessing your financial runway, and initiating exploratory conversations. This approach reduces the pressure to resolve ambivalence all at once, as most people move from uncertainty to clarity gradually by addressing one concrete issue at a time.
Media & PR: editor@dailystraits.com. Copyright 2021–Present DailyStraits.com. All rights reserved.