At its core, “quiet quitting” describes employees doing the bare minimum required for their jobs, without going above and beyond. They fulfill their responsibilities but refrain from extra tasks, working late, or engaging in office politics.

However, the term itself is misleading, implying passive disengagement. Many argue “quiet quitting” is less about quitting and more about setting healthy boundaries.

Disengagement or Self-Preservation: Drawing the Line

“Quiet quitting” is open to interpretation. Some see it as declining employee morale and lack of commitment, potentially stifling innovation, hampering productivity, and hurting the company’s bottom line.

Others champion it as self-preservation in a work culture that glorifies overwork and blurs personal and professional lines. They believe setting boundaries is crucial for work-life balance, preventing burnout, and safeguarding mental health.

Signs of Disengagement vs. Healthy Boundaries

• Signs of Disengagement:
  • Consistently producing subpar work
  • Withdrawing from team interactions and collaborations
  • Showing a lack of enthusiasm or interest in company goals
• Signs of Healthy Boundary Setting:
  • Clearly communicating availability and work limits
  • Prioritizing personal time and well-being
  • Focusing on delivering high-quality work within agreed-upon hours

Finding the Balance in Today’s Workplace

While “quiet quitting” might be new, the underlying issues aren’t. Pressure to constantly go above and beyond can be unsustainable, leading to burnout and resentment. However, complete disengagement harms both the individual and the organization.

The key lies in finding a balance. Employees should set healthy boundaries and prioritize well-being, while employers should foster a culture of respect, open communication, and reasonable expectations.