To understand “quiet quitting,” we need to look at the context in which it emerged. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a reassessment of priorities for many. Working from home blurred the lines between personal and professional life, often leading to burnout and a desire for better work-life balance.

Simultaneously, social media platforms amplified narratives of hustle culture and the “always-on” mentality, creating a sense of pressure and inadequacy. This backdrop set the stage for “quiet quitting” to resonate with a workforce seeking a more sustainable approach to their careers.

Unpacking the Trend: Disengagement or Empowerment?

The term itself is somewhat misleading, as “quiet quitting” doesn’t necessarily involve actually quitting one’s job. Instead, it typically manifests as:

• Reduced engagement: Employees doing the bare minimum required of them, without going above and beyond.
• Strict adherence to work hours: No more checking emails after hours or working late without compensation.
• Prioritizing personal time: Placing a higher value on hobbies, relationships, and well-being outside of work.

While some interpret this as disengagement or a lack of work ethic, others view it as a form of self-preservation and setting healthy boundaries. After all, isn’t it reasonable to expect employees to dedicate their contracted hours to work and then disconnect to recharge and pursue personal interests?

The crucial distinction lies in the intention behind the actions. Is an employee disengaged because they’ve lost interest in their work, or are they strategically setting boundaries to protect their well-being and prevent burnout? The answer isn’t always clear-cut and likely varies from person to person.