The COVID-19 pandemic undeniably shifted the landscape of work. Remote work, flexible schedules, and the “Great Resignation” prompted many to reevaluate their priorities and the role of work in their lives. This period of reflection seems to have given rise to “quiet quitting,” a term attributed to career coach Bryan Creely.

While definitions vary, “quiet quitting” generally describes the act of doing the bare minimum at work. It’s about fulfilling your job description without going above and beyond, essentially opting out of the hustle culture that often defines many workplaces.

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

The debate around “quiet quitting” hinges on a critical question: Is it simply a rebranding of setting healthy boundaries, or is it a passive-aggressive path toward disengagement? The answer, like most things in life, is nuanced.

Arguments for Healthy Boundaries

• Preventing Burnout: In a world where work can easily encroach on personal time, setting boundaries is crucial for preventing burnout and maintaining a healthy work-life balance.
• Redefining Success: “Quiet quitting” can be seen as a rejection of the idea that our worth is solely determined by our professional achievements.
• Prioritizing Well-being: By limiting work to contracted hours, individuals prioritize their mental and physical health, fostering a more sustainable approach to their careers.

Concerns about Disengagement

• Stifling Growth: Consistently doing the bare minimum can hinder professional growth and limit opportunities for learning and development.
• Impacting Team Morale: When colleagues perceive a lack of effort, it can lead to resentment and negatively impact team dynamics.
• Communication Breakdown: Instead of silently disengaging, open communication with managers about workload and expectations is often a more constructive approach.