The Rise of “Quiet Quitting”
The term “quiet quitting” has exploded across social media, igniting debates about work-life balance. But is this a new phenomenon, or just a trendy label for an age-old struggle?
Unpacking the “Quiet Quitting” Debate
There are two main camps in the “quiet quitting” debate:
1. Quiet Quitting as a Negative Trend
Some view “quiet quitting” negatively, as passive resistance where employees do the bare minimum and lack commitment, potentially harming team morale and productivity.
2. Setting Boundaries as a Positive Shift
Others see “quiet quitting” not as slacking off, but as setting healthy boundaries. They argue employees are pushing back against unreasonable expectations and prioritizing well-being, emphasizing disconnecting after work and focusing on personal life.
Reframing the Conversation: Beyond “Quiet Quitting”
The term “quiet quitting” itself is problematic, framing boundary-setting as secretive or subversive. We need to normalize employees not being obligated to go above and beyond their job descriptions.
Here’s the crucial distinction:
- Quiet Quitting: Neglecting responsibilities, delivering subpar work, and disengaging from the team.
- Setting Boundaries: Clearly communicating limits, prioritizing well-being, and focusing on agreed-upon tasks within work hours.