Quiet Quitting or Setting Boundaries? Unpacking the Latest Workplace Trend
The Rise of “Quiet Quitting“: A New Name for an Old Struggle?
The modern workplace is buzzing with talk of “quiet quitting.” This seemingly new phenomenon has sparked countless articles, debates, and think pieces. But is it truly a novel concept, or are we simply slapping a trendy label on an age-old issue – the struggle to establish healthy work-life boundaries?
Enter “quiet quitting,” a term popularized on social media, which essentially describes doing the bare minimum at work and resisting the pressure to go above and beyond. While some see it as a concerning trend indicative of employee disengagement, others argue it’s a necessary correction to unsustainable work expectations.
Unpacking the Nuances: Quiet Quitting vs. Setting Boundaries
The crux of the matter lies in differentiating between “quiet quitting” as disengagement and “quiet quitting” as a form of boundary-setting.
Quiet Quitting as Disengagement:
- Characterized by apathy, lack of motivation, and minimal effort.
- Driven by dissatisfaction, disillusionment, or a sense of being undervalued.
- Can be detrimental to both the individual and the organization.
Quiet Quitting as Boundary-Setting:
- Involves consciously choosing to limit work engagement to contracted hours and responsibilities.
- Rooted in prioritizing well-being, personal time, and other aspects of life outside work.
- Can be a healthy way to manage workload and prevent burnout.