At its core, “quiet quitting” refers to the act of doing the bare minimum at work—fulfilling one’s job description without going above and beyond. While some view this as a form of passive resistance or a lack of work ethic, others argue that it’s simply a way of setting healthy boundaries and prioritizing well-being.

The debate hinges on the interpretation of “going above and beyond.” What constitutes exceeding expectations in one workplace might be considered standard practice in another. Moreover, the concept fails to acknowledge systemic issues such as unrealistic workloads, toxic work environments, and inadequate compensation that often contribute to employee burnout.

Instead of labeling it as “quitting,” it’s more constructive to view this trend through the lens of boundary-setting. Here are key distinctions:

• Quiet Quitting: Often implies disengagement and apathy, potentially leading to a decline in work quality.
• Setting Boundaries: Focuses on establishing clear limits between work and personal life to prevent burnout and maintain well-being. This can involve declining extra projects, setting realistic deadlines, and prioritizing personal time.

My Perspective: Choosing Boundaries, Not Quitting

While the term “quiet quitting” might be catchy, I believe it’s essential to move beyond this simplistic label. Employees shouldn’t have to choose between sacrificing their well-being for their jobs and “quietly quitting.” We need to normalize open communication about workload management, mental health, and flexible work arrangements.

Setting boundaries is not about doing less; it’s about working smarter and creating a sustainable work-life balance. It’s about recognizing that our worth extends beyond our productivity and that rest and rejuvenation are crucial for long-term success.