Enter “quiet quitting” – a term that resonates with those who feel trapped in this cycle. It’s characterized by employees doing the bare minimum required of their job description, resisting the urge to overwork, and prioritizing their well-being outside of the office.

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

While the term “quiet quitting” might suggest a passive-aggressive form of disengagement, the reality is often more nuanced. Many argue that what’s being labeled as “quitting” is actually a healthy shift towards setting boundaries.

Here’s why the distinction matters:

• Quiet Quitting: This often implies a sense of apathy, resentment, or disengagement from one’s work. It suggests a lack of motivation and a desire to do the bare minimum without getting fired.
• Setting Boundaries: This involves consciously defining limits between work and personal life to protect one’s time, energy, and well-being. It’s about prioritizing what truly matters and refusing to let work consume every aspect of life.

The crucial difference lies in the intention. Are employees simply clocking in and clocking out with minimal effort, or are they actively choosing to prioritize their well-being by setting healthy boundaries?

Reframing the Conversation: It’s About Healthy Boundaries

While I understand the concerns about “quiet quitting” leading to decreased productivity and a decline in work ethic, I believe it’s more productive to reframe the conversation around boundary-setting.

We need to move away from the idea that employees should be “always on” and embrace the fact that healthy, well-rounded individuals make for more engaged and productive employees in the long run.