The Rise of “Quiet Quitting“
The workplace lexicon seems to add a new buzzword every week. The latest entry, “quiet quitting,” has sparked heated debates and countless think pieces. But is it really a new phenomenon, or are we just rebranding an age-old struggle between employee well-being and employer expectations?
Beyond the Buzzword: Understanding the Context
Quiet quitting, in essence, describes employees doing the bare minimum required of their job description and no more. They’re not actively seeking new employment, but they’re not going above and beyond for their current one either. This can manifest in various ways, such as:
- Leaving work precisely at the end of the workday
- Not responding to emails or messages outside of work hours
- Declining to take on extra projects or responsibilities
This trend has emerged in a post-pandemic world where burnout is rampant, and work-life balance feels increasingly elusive. Employees, particularly millennials and Gen Z, are pushing back against the “hustle culture” that dominated pre-pandemic times and prioritizing their well-being.
Quiet Quitting vs. Setting Healthy Boundaries: Where’s the Line?
Here’s where the debate gets nuanced. Critics of the term “quiet quitting” argue that it unfairly frames employees setting healthy boundaries as somehow subversive or negative. They argue that refusing to be tethered to work 24/7 and prioritizing personal time shouldn’t be deemed “quitting” but rather a sign of a healthy work-life balance.
On the other hand, some argue that true engagement involves a degree of passion and going the extra mile. They worry that widespread “quiet quitting” could lead to decreased productivity, stifled innovation, and a decline in company culture.
The reality, as always, is complex. There’s a clear difference between setting healthy boundaries and disengaging from work altogether.
