Despite its name, quiet quitting doesn’t actually involve handing in your resignation letter. Instead, it’s about mentally checking out – doing the bare minimum required of you, refusing to go above and beyond, and prioritizing your personal time over work obligations. Essentially, it’s drawing a line in the sand between your professional and personal life.

Proponents of quiet quitting argue that it’s a way to combat burnout and reclaim their time in a demanding work culture. Critics, however, see it as a lack of commitment and potentially detrimental to career progression. This difference in perspective raises a crucial question: Is quiet quitting just a newfangled term for an age-old concept – setting boundaries?

Quiet Quitting vs. Setting Boundaries: Key Differences and Similarities

There’s a compelling argument to be made that quiet quitting is simply a rebranding of setting boundaries. Let’s break it down:

Similarities Between Quiet Quitting and Setting Boundaries

• Defining Limits: Both quiet quitting and setting boundaries involve establishing clear limits between work and personal life. This could mean not answering emails after work hours, declining non-essential meetings, or delegating tasks when overwhelmed.
• Prioritizing Well-being: Both concepts prioritize mental and emotional well-being. By refusing to be constantly “on” and available, individuals are taking control of their time and energy.
• Shifting Power Dynamics: Quiet quitting, like setting boundaries, can be seen as a way for employees to reassert some power in the employer-employee dynamic. It challenges the expectation of constant availability and pushes back against hustle culture.