At its core, “quiet quitting” describes employees doing the bare minimum required of their job description—no more, no less. They’re not actively seeking to leave their positions, but they’re not going above and beyond either. Proponents argue it’s a form of self-preservation in a culture that often glorifies overwork and presenteeism. Critics, however, view it as a lack of commitment and a recipe for career stagnation.

This is where the waters get murky. Is “quiet quitting” simply a new term for setting healthy boundaries, or is it a slippery slope towards disengagement and apathy? The answer, like most things in life, is nuanced.

Boundaries, Burnout, and the Future of Work: Untangling the Threads

To understand this trend, we need to acknowledge the backdrop against which it’s unfolding. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a global reassessment of priorities, with many individuals re-evaluating what truly matters. Burnout rates soared, and the lines between work and personal life blurred beyond recognition.

In this context, “quiet quitting” can be seen as a reaction to unsustainable work demands. Employees are pushing back against the expectation of constant availability and prioritizing their well-being. This can manifest in various ways:

• Saying “no” to extra projects: Prioritizing existing workload and declining tasks outside their job scope.
• Setting clear work hours: Disconnecting outside of designated work times and not responding to emails or messages after hours.
• Delegating effectively: Not taking on responsibilities that belong to others and advocating for fair workload distribution.

These actions, often misconstrued as “quitting,” are actually hallmarks of healthy boundary-setting. When done constructively, they can lead to improved work-life balance, reduced stress, and increased productivity in the long run.