The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a seismic shift in how we view work. The “Great Resignation” saw millions leaving their jobs, seeking better work-life balance, flexibility, and purpose. This mass exodus shone a light on the growing discontent with traditional work structures and expectations.

Suddenly, prioritizing mental health and personal time wasn’t just acceptable—it became desirable. This newfound focus on well-being set the stage for the “quiet quitting” debate.

Unpacking the Controversy: Disengagement or Self-Preservation?

The term “quiet quitting” is inherently problematic. It implies a lack of effort or commitment, framing employees who set boundaries as somehow deceptive or unproductive. Let’s unpack the nuances:

What is Quiet Quitting?

• Often characterized by doing the bare minimum, disengaging from work beyond assigned tasks.
• Can stem from burnout, feeling undervalued, or a lack of growth opportunities.
• May lead to decreased productivity and a negative impact on team morale.

What Does Setting Boundaries at Work Mean?

• Proactively defining limits to protect personal time and well-being.
• Involves clear communication with managers and colleagues about availability and workload capacity.
• Prioritizes sustainable work practices to prevent burnout and maintain long-term engagement.

The crucial difference lies in intention and communication. While quiet quitting breeds disengagement and resentment, setting boundaries fosters a healthier, more sustainable work environment.

Open Dialogue and Mutual Respect Are Key

In my view, labeling employees who prioritize their well-being as “quiet quitters” is not only unfair but also counterproductive. We need to move beyond buzzwords and focus on fostering open communication and mutual respect in the workplace.

Employees deserve autonomy over their time and the right to disconnect without guilt. Employers, on the other hand, benefit from a workforce that is engaged, motivated, and not burning the midnight oil (leading to potential burnout).