Simultaneously, the pandemic blurred the lines between work and personal life. Remote work, while offering flexibility, often led to longer working hours and an “always-on” mentality. This further exacerbated the feeling of being tethered to work, leaving many craving clear boundaries and control over their time.

Quiet Quitting vs. Setting Boundaries: What’s the Difference?

While “quiet quitting” might seem like a catchy phrase, it oversimplifies a more nuanced issue. Is it truly about doing the bare minimum, or is it a way for employees to reclaim their time and energy outside of work? The answer, more often than not, lies in the distinction between disengagement and boundary-setting.

Quiet Quitting:

• Characterized by apathy, disinterest, and a lack of motivation.
• Often involves withdrawing from work-related tasks and interactions beyond the stipulated scope.
• Can be a symptom of burnout, feeling undervalued, or a lack of growth opportunities.

Setting Boundaries:

• Involves clearly defining limits between work and personal life.
• Focuses on prioritizing well-being and mental health.
• Can involve saying “no” to extra work, setting clear working hours, and taking breaks.

While both might manifest as reduced engagement at work, the underlying motivations differ significantly. Quiet quitting stems from negativity and disengagement, while setting boundaries is a proactive approach to protect one’s well-being and create a sustainable work-life balance.

Reclaiming Agency and Redefining Success in the Workplace

The “quiet quitting” trend highlights a crucial conversation about employee well-being and expectations in the modern workplace. It’s not about encouraging mediocrity, but rather about challenging the assumption that our worth is solely defined by our productivity.