Is ‘Quiet Quitting’ Actually Just Setting Boundaries? The Big Debate Explained.

The phrase “quiet quitting” is attributed to TikToker Zaid Khan, whose viral video resonated with millions. Essentially, it describes the act of doing the bare minimum at work— fulfilling your job description without going above and beyond. No more burning the midnight oil, no more checking emails on weekends—just a clear delineation between work life and personal life.

While the term might be new, the sentiment is not. Disillusionment with hustle culture and the expectation of constant availability has been brewing for years, particularly among younger generations. The pandemic, with its blurring of work-life boundaries, only exacerbated these feelings.

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

The debate hinges on the interpretation of “quiet quitting.” Is it simply a synonym for setting healthy boundaries, or does it imply a more passive-aggressive form of disengagement?

Arguments for Quiet Quitting as Boundary Setting:

• Advocates argue that it’s about reclaiming personal time and prioritizing well-being without resorting to drastic measures like quitting a job.
• They emphasize the importance of setting limits to prevent burnout and maintain a sustainable work-life balance.
• Proponents view it as a form of self-preservation in a work culture that often glorifies overworking.

Arguments Against Quiet Quitting:

• Critics argue that the term itself carries negative connotations, suggesting a lack of communication and a passive approach to addressing work-related concerns.
• They contend that true boundary setting should involve open dialogue with managers and advocating for oneself within the workplace.
• Some argue that it can hinder career progression and damage team morale if not handled constructively.