Quiet Quitting or Setting Boundaries? The New Debate Around Work-Life Balance

The concept of “quiet quitting” emerged in the wake of the Great Resignation, where record numbers of employees left their jobs, seeking better opportunities and greater work-life balance. The COVID-19 pandemic also played a significant role, forcing a reassessment of priorities as the lines between work and personal life blurred for many.

In this context, “quiet quitting” can be seen as a response to several factors:

• Burnout and stress: Overwork and constant availability have led to widespread employee burnout.
• Lack of boundaries: The always-on work culture fueled by technology makes it difficult to disconnect.
• Feeling undervalued: When employees feel underpaid or underappreciated, they may be less likely to go above and beyond.

Quiet Quitting vs. Setting Boundaries: Disengagement or Self-Preservation?

The debate around “quiet quitting” hinges on how it’s interpreted. Some argue it’s simply a matter of setting healthy boundaries – refusing to answer emails after work hours, prioritizing personal time, and declining tasks outside one’s job description. This perspective emphasizes self-preservation and mental well-being.

Others view “quiet quitting” as a form of passive disengagement. They argue that by doing the bare minimum, employees are not fulfilling their potential and ultimately hurting their careers and the company. This perspective emphasizes commitment and going the extra mile.

The reality is likely somewhere in between. While setting healthy boundaries is crucial for work-life balance, complete disengagement can be detrimental. The key is finding a sustainable balance that benefits both the individual and the organization.