Enter “quiet quitting,” a concept that, on the surface, seems to reject the always-on mentality. But the definition itself is up for debate.

Quiet Quitting or Simply Setting Boundaries? Unpacking the Nuance

Here’s where the conversation gets interesting. Some define “quiet quitting” as doing the bare minimum at work, no more, no less. Others argue it’s about establishing healthy boundaries, prioritizing well-being, and refusing to let work consume every waking hour.

Let’s break down the two perspectives:

• The “Disengagement” Perspective: This view sees “quiet quitting” as a form of passive resistance. Employees are checked out, doing just enough to avoid getting fired but lacking motivation or passion for their work.
• The “Boundary-Setting” Perspective: This interpretation frames “quiet quitting” as a healthy response to unsustainable work demands. It’s about reclaiming personal time, setting limits, and focusing on what truly matters outside of work.

The reality is likely a mix of both. Some individuals may be genuinely disengaged, while others are simply striving for a healthier relationship with work.

Reframing the Conversation: Moving Beyond “Quiet Quitting”

I believe the term “quiet quitting” itself is problematic. It implies laziness or a lack of work ethic, which isn’t necessarily the case. We need to move beyond this binary of “hustle” versus “check out” and embrace a more nuanced conversation about work-life integration.

Instead of “quiet quitting,” let’s talk about:

1. Setting healthy boundaries: Establish clear expectations around work hours, availability, and workload.
2. Prioritizing well-being: Encourage employees to take breaks, use vacation time, and engage in activities that bring them joy outside of work.
3. Fostering open communication: Create a workplace culture where employees feel comfortable discussing their workload, stress levels, and need for support.