The phrase “quiet quitting” is attributed to a work and personal life during lockdowns.

While the term is relatively new, the sentiment behind it is not. Employees have long struggled with feeling undervalued, overworked, and underappreciated. The rise of hustle culture, coupled with the always-on nature of technology, has only exacerbated these feelings.

Quiet Quitting or Boundary Setting? Analyzing the Trend

At its core, “quiet quitting” refers to the act of doing the bare minimum at work — fulfilling your job description without going above and beyond. This can manifest as:

• Not volunteering for extra projects.
• Leaving work promptly at the end of the workday.
• Disengaging from non-essential work activities.

Proponents argue that it’s a way to reclaim personal time and prioritize well-being in a demanding work environment. Critics, however, view it as a form of passive resistance that can ultimately harm one’s career prospects and contribute to a negative workplace culture.

The crucial question is: Is “quiet quitting” truly a negative phenomenon, or is it simply a way of establishing healthy boundaries?

A Balanced Perspective: The Importance of Intention

I believe the answer lies in the intention. If “quiet quitting” stems from a place of resentment, apathy, and a desire to do as little as possible, it can be detrimental. However, if it’s a conscious decision to set boundaries, prioritize well-being, and prevent burnout, it can be a positive step towards a healthier work-life integration.

There’s a difference between being disengaged and being strategically engaged. Setting boundaries isn’t about neglecting your responsibilities; it’s about protecting your time and energy so you can be more effective in the hours you do dedicate to work.