To understand “quiet quitting,” we need to examine the culture that preceded it. For decades, hustle culture has reigned supreme. Employees were expected to go above and beyond, constantly striving for that next promotion, often at the expense of their personal lives. This relentless pursuit of “more” led to burnout, disengagement, and ultimately, a desire for something different.

“Quiet quitting” describes employees who are rejecting the pressure to overwork. They are no longer subscribing to the “live to work” mentality. Instead, they are choosing to prioritize their well-being by setting boundaries and focusing on their contracted hours.

Quiet Quitting or Setting Boundaries? Examining the Arguments

The controversy surrounding “quiet quitting” lies in its interpretation. Some argue that it’s just a fancy term for doing your job and nothing more, while others view it as a form of passive resistance against exploitative work practices.

Here’s a breakdown of the arguments:

• The Case for Boundaries: Proponents argue that “quiet quitting” is simply about setting healthy boundaries between work and personal life. It’s about reclaiming your time and energy, refusing to be defined solely by your job title.
• The Case for Disengagement: Critics argue that “quiet quitting” reflects a decline in employee engagement and a lack of commitment to the company. They believe it hinders productivity and fosters a negative work environment.