The COVID-19 pandemic brought significant changes to the workplace, with remote work blurring the lines between professional and personal lives. This led to increased workloads and burnout, prompting many to reassess their priorities. “Quiet quitting” emerged in this context.

Despite the name, “quiet quitting” isn’t about actually quitting your job. Instead, it’s about doing the bare minimum, resisting the urge to go above and beyond, and prioritizing personal time over work commitments.

Quiet Quitting vs. Setting Boundaries: Separating Hype from Reality

“Quiet quitting” has sparked debate. Is it about setting healthy boundaries or simply disengagement? Let’s examine both sides:

The Argument for “Quiet Quitting” as Setting Boundaries:

• Burnout Prevention: Limiting work to contracted hours safeguards mental and emotional well-being.
• Prioritizing Personal Life: It allows individuals to dedicate more time to passions, relationships, and self-care.
• Challenging Exploitative Practices: It can be a way to push back against unreasonable workloads and a culture of overwork.

The Argument Against “Quiet Quitting” as Disengagement:

• Impact on Career Progression: Consistently doing the bare minimum may hinder career growth.
• Strain on Team Dynamics: Perceived disengagement can create resentment and impact team productivity.
• Missed Opportunities: Checking out mentally can lead to missed learning experiences and contributions.

Quiet Quitting or Healthy Boundaries? Finding the Right Perspective

The key is understanding the motivation. Is it about establishing healthy boundaries or is it rooted in apathy and resentment? The former promotes a sustainable work life, while the latter can be detrimental.