This mass exodus, coupled with the rise of remote work, shifted the power dynamic. Employees realized their worth and were no longer willing to tolerate toxic work environments or prioritize their jobs above their well-being. Enter “quiet quitting.”

Quiet Quitting or Boundary Setting? A Closer Look

At its core, “quiet quitting” involves doing the bare minimum at work. It’s about disengaging from the hustle culture mentality and refusing to go above and beyond. While this might seem like slacking off to some, others argue it’s simply about setting healthy boundaries.

Here’s a breakdown of the argument:

• Quiet Quitting Argument: Proponents believe that consistently exceeding expectations leads to exploitation. They argue that employees should prioritize their personal lives and mental health over work demands that extend beyond their job description.
• Boundary Setting Argument: This perspective emphasizes the importance of clearly defining work-life boundaries. It encourages employees to communicate their limits, decline extra responsibilities when necessary, and prioritize tasks that align with their job roles.

The line between these two concepts is blurry. Is refusing to answer emails after work hours “quiet quitting” or simply setting a boundary? The answer likely depends on individual perspectives and workplace expectations.

Embracing Boundaries, Rejecting the Negative Connotation of “Quiet Quitting”

Personally, I believe “quiet quitting” is a misnomer. The term itself carries a negative connotation, implying laziness or a lack of work ethic. In reality, most people engaging in this trend are simply setting healthy boundaries, something we should all be encouraged to do.