Essentially, “quiet quitting” refers to the act of doing the bare minimum at work. It’s about fulfilling your job description without going above and beyond, opting out of the hustle culture that often permeates many industries. Think: not volunteering for extra projects, clocking out at your designated time, and generally disengaging from the “always-on” mentality.

The phenomenon has sparked a debate: Is it a sign of a disengaged, entitled workforce or a long-overdue correction to unsustainable work expectations? The answer, as with most things, is nuanced.

Quiet Quitting vs. Setting Healthy Boundaries

Here’s where the waters get murky. The line between “quiet quitting” and setting healthy boundaries can be blurry. Consider these scenarios:

• Scenario 1: An employee consistently works late, sacrifices weekends, and feels burnt out. They decide to start leaving on time and limiting their workload to what is manageable.
• Scenario 2: An employee consistently delivers subpar work, avoids taking initiative, and complains about their workload despite having ample time and resources.

In the first scenario, the employee is establishing boundaries to protect their well-being and prevent burnout. This is not “quiet quitting,” but rather a healthy adjustment to prioritize a sustainable work-life balance.

The second scenario, however, depicts a lack of engagement and potentially a performance issue. This behavior is closer to the negative connotations associated with “quiet quitting.”

Reframing the Conversation: It’s About Boundaries

In my opinion, framing this conversation around “quiet quitting” can be counterproductive. It often comes with a negative connotation, implying laziness or a lack of work ethic. Instead, we should be talking about setting healthy boundaries and fostering a work environment that respects those boundaries.