At its core, “quiet quitting” refers to employees doing the bare minimum required of their job description and no more. They’re not going above and beyond, they’re not seeking out extra responsibilities, and they’re certainly not sacrificing their personal time for work-related tasks.

For some, this conjures up images of disengaged, even lazy, employees who are just coasting by. Others, however, see it as a long-overdue correction to a work culture that often glorifies overworking and blurs the lines between personal and professional life.

Quiet Quitting vs. Setting Boundaries: Understanding the Difference

The key to understanding the “quiet quitting” debate lies in recognizing the difference between disengagement and setting healthy boundaries.

• Quiet Quitting: This often stems from feeling burnt out, undervalued, or simply apathetic towards one’s job. It’s characterized by a lack of motivation and a desire to do the absolute least possible.
• Setting Boundaries: This is a proactive approach to work-life balance. It involves clearly defining what you are and are not willing to do outside of your agreed-upon responsibilities and communicating those boundaries effectively.

Here’s the crucial distinction: Setting boundaries is about taking control of your well-being and establishing a sustainable work rhythm. Quiet quitting, on the other hand, is often a symptom of a deeper issue – a lack of engagement, fulfillment, or respect within the workplace.

Is Quiet Quitting a Symptom of a Larger Problem?

I believe that much of the “quiet quitting” phenomenon is a direct result of a work culture that has become increasingly demanding and unsustainable, particularly for younger generations.

The always-on mentality fueled by technology, coupled with stagnant wages and rising living costs, has left many feeling burnt out and taken advantage of. Is it any surprise that people are pushing back against the expectation to constantly go above and beyond, often without adequate compensation or appreciation?