Enter “quiet quitting.” The term, while seemingly new, encapsulates the decision to do exactly what your job description entails—no more, no less. It’s about rejecting the pressure to overwork and instead prioritizing a healthier work-life balance.

Is It Quiet Quitting or Healthy Boundary Setting?

The crux of the debate lies in how we define “quiet quitting.” Some argue that it’s simply a rebranding of setting healthy boundaries. After all, refusing to answer emails after work hours or declining extra projects to prioritize existing commitments are not signs of laziness, but rather of self-respect and responsible time management.

On the other hand, critics argue that “quiet quitting” can breed a culture of disengagement and hinder career progression. If everyone does the bare minimum, innovation and collaboration may suffer. They argue that open communication about workload and expectations is a more effective solution than silent disengagement.

The reality likely lies somewhere in between. While setting boundaries is crucial for a healthy work-life balance, it’s equally important to be proactive and engaged in one’s career.

Finding the Balance Between Engagement and Well-being

Personally, I believe “quiet quitting” is a symptom of a larger issue: the pressure to constantly overperform. While setting boundaries is crucial, simply doing the bare minimum isn’t sustainable in the long run. It’s about finding a balance—being a valuable contributor while also prioritizing your well-being. This involves open communication with your employer, setting realistic expectations, and knowing when to say “no” to protect your time and energy.