The past decade has seen the rise of a “hustle culture” where overworking was glorified and dedication was measured by long hours and constant availability. This, coupled with stagnant wages and increasing demands on employees, has led to widespread burnout and dissatisfaction. Enter “quiet quitting,” a seemingly passive form of resistance where employees disengage from the pressure to go above and beyond, choosing instead to focus on their contracted hours and responsibilities.

However, many argue that “quiet quitting” is simply a misnomer for setting healthy boundaries. Instead of viewing it as a negative trend, they see it as a necessary correction to unsustainable work practices. This perspective emphasizes the importance of employees prioritizing their well-being and setting limits to protect their time and energy.

Quiet Quitting vs. Boundary Setting: What’s the Difference?

The key to understanding this trend lies in differentiating between disengagement and establishing healthy boundaries. Let’s break it down:

• Quiet Quitting: This often involves a decline in work quality, a lack of initiative, and a general sense of apathy towards one’s job. It stems from feeling undervalued, overworked, and burnt out.
• Setting Boundaries: This involves proactively communicating your limits and priorities. It’s about clearly defining your work hours, taking regular breaks, and saying “no” to tasks that fall outside your agreed-upon responsibilities.

While quiet quitting can be detrimental to both the individual and the organization, setting boundaries is crucial for maintaining a healthy work-life balance and preventing burnout.

Reframing the Conversation: Moving Towards a Healthier Workplace

Instead of demonizing “quiet quitting,” we should be encouraging open conversations about realistic workloads, employee well-being, and the importance of setting boundaries. Organisations need to foster cultures where employees feel valued, heard, and empowered to set limits without fear of retribution.