To truly grasp the “quiet quitting” phenomenon, we need to consider the context in which it’s emerged. The past few years have been a whirlwind of change in the workplace, fueled by:

• The Great Resignation: Millions of employees worldwide re-evaluated their priorities, leading to a mass exodus from jobs that no longer served them.
• Burnout and Hustle Culture: The always-on, hyper-connected work environment has contributed to widespread burnout, pushing employees to seek a more sustainable pace.
• The Rise of Remote Work: The shift to remote and hybrid models blurred the lines between work and personal life, leading some to crave clearer boundaries.

In this environment, “quiet quitting” can be seen as a natural consequence—a way for employees to regain control and prioritize their well-being in a system that often feels demanding and unsustainable.

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

The problem with the term “quiet quitting” is its inherent negativity. It implies a sense of laziness or disengagement, which isn’t necessarily the case. In reality, much of what’s being labeled as “quiet quitting” is simply employees setting healthy boundaries.

Here’s the key distinction:

• Quiet Quitting: This implies a passive-aggressive approach where employees withdraw effort without communicating their needs or concerns. It suggests a lack of investment in one’s work and a potential decline in performance.
• Setting Boundaries: This is a proactive and healthy approach to managing workload and expectations. It involves communicating clearly with managers and colleagues about limits, priorities, and availability. It’s about working smarter, not necessarily less, and ensuring that personal time is protected.