The COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly shifted the landscape of work. Remote work blurred the lines between personal and professional lives, often leaving employees feeling pressured to be “on” at all hours. This, coupled with the “hustle culture” mentality already prevalent in many industries, created a breeding ground for burnout and dissatisfaction. Enter “quiet quitting.”

At its core, “quiet quitting” is about doing the bare minimum at work – fulfilling your job description without going above and beyond. It’s about reclaiming your personal time and setting boundaries against the expectation of constant availability and overwork.

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

Here’s where the conversation gets interesting. Critics argue that “quiet quitting” breeds mediocrity and discourages ambition. They claim it’s a passive-aggressive approach that ultimately harms both the individual and the company.

However, proponents argue that framing this trend as “quitting” is misleading. They see it as a necessary pushback against exploitative work practices. By setting clear boundaries and prioritizing their well-being, employees are essentially saying “no” to the glorification of overwork and reclaiming their agency.

The reality likely lies somewhere in the middle. There’s a distinct difference between disengagement and strategic boundary-setting:

• Quiet Quitting: This often manifests as apathy, a decline in work quality, and a lack of initiative. It can stem from feeling undervalued, burnt out, or simply checked out.
• Setting Boundaries: This is a proactive approach to protecting your time and energy. It involves communicating your limits, prioritizing tasks effectively, and saying “no” when necessary. It’s about finding a sustainable balance between work and life.