The term “quiet quitting” exploded on social media, often depicting employees doing the bare minimum and disengaging from their jobs. This trend, frequently attributed to burnout and a desire for better work-life balance, has sparked conversations about employee expectations, company culture, and the changing dynamics of the modern workplace.

However, critics argue that “quiet quitting” is misleading. They contend it’s not about quitting at all but rather about setting healthy boundaries—a crucial aspect of any job. This perspective emphasizes that employees can be committed to their roles while prioritizing their well-being and personal time.

Decoding “Quiet Quitting”: Different Perspectives

The debate centers around the interpretation of “quiet quitting.” Is it:

• Silent Resistance: Some see it as burnt-out employees reclaiming their time and energy without risking their jobs directly.
• Disengagement Warning Sign: Others view it as a symptom of a larger issue, where employees lack motivation and feel undervalued, leading to decreased productivity and innovation.
• Simply Boundary Setting: This perspective argues that “quiet quitting” is merely a new term for an old practice—establishing limits to protect personal time and well-being, which should be encouraged, not demonized.

The reality likely lies somewhere within these perspectives. What’s clear is that the conversation has resonated, highlighting the need for open dialogue about expectations, boundaries, and well-being in the workplace.

The Power of Setting Boundaries: A Personal Perspective

I believe “setting boundaries” is a more accurate and empowering term than “quiet quitting.” The latter carries a negative connotation, implying laziness or a lack of commitment. In contrast, setting boundaries demonstrates self-awareness, a commitment to one’s well-being, and the ability to communicate needs effectively—all valuable qualities in any employee.