Calling it ‘quiet quitting’ undermines the value of simply doing one’s job

ANOTHER day, another work-life buzzword. The phrase du jour is “quiet quitting”, which apparently means such radical moves as not working on weekends, refusing to take on duties outside one’s job scope, and staying switched off when on holiday.

In other words: doing the job that one is paid for. Not, in fact, “quitting” in any meaningful sense of the word.

Let’s be clear. The TikTokers advocating this approach and the bright young things quoted in news articles about it are not engaging in presenteeism, which is the destructive practice of showing up at work but not being productive. These self-labelled quiet quitters aren’t even unengaged.

No – for them, quiet quitting simply means not going above and beyond one’s stipulated duties. They still perform their job well and meet expectations. They just choose to clock off on time and avoid overextending themselves.

To me, that simply sounds like having a healthy relationship with work.

If anything, the very act of labelling this as “quitting” speaks to a deeper mindset issue. Powered by overachiever guilt, these recovering victims of hustle culture do not even see themselves as rightfully reasserting work-life boundaries. Instead, in self-effacing terms, they label themselves as “quitters” even while continuing to be productive employees.

This suggests an unhealthy internalisation of the idea that to truly “work” is to do more than one’s stipulated duties. By framing healthy work-life separation as quitting, these would-be renegades are in fact reinforcing the worker-exploiting view that the bare minimum is, ironically, doing more than the bare minimum.

Consider instead the decades-old labour movement practice of work-to-rule. In this low-key form of industrial action, workers perform their job to the official minimum standards and thus cause productivity to suffer.

On the surface of it, work-to-rule seems similar to quiet quitting. But their respective signalling effects and underlying worldviews differ vastly.

Quiet quitting is often framed as a move taken for individual well-being. By calling themselves “quitters”, however, such workers are ceding the moral high ground to employers. They imply that there is something subversive or non-ideal about their choice to stop overworking themselves.

Work-to-rule, in contrast, is a collective effort in which workers take a stance against exploitation. When they perform only what is strictly expected, the company’s productivity falls. The message sent to bosses is that workers have already been putting in more effort than they are compensated for – and crucially, that this should not be the case.

Quiet quitting reinforces the idea that a “true” employee should go above and beyond. Work-to-rule rejects this, and instead demands that effort is fairly valued. Importantly, it reminds bosses that if workers choose to put in extra effort, that is in the spirit of friendly workplace relations – and not because it should be the default.

Here, one might expect the usual objections from bosses about how workers need to be hungrier and willing to make sacrifices. But in the spirit of work-to-rule, the response is that such dedication should be earned and not assumed. It is far healthier – for both workers and companies – if workers put in extra effort and hours because they love their job, and not because they feel compelled to do so.

Advocates of quiet quitting have good intentions. Having realised the importance of maintaining a work-life balance, they now encourage others to do so.

It is just a shame that their choice of term and framing of the issue are instead reinforcing the very power structures that they are trying to escape – not to mention paving the way for reactionary thoughtpieces about how the younger generation are strawberry-soft quitters.

If working conditions are to be improved for everyone, then instead of the individual escapes embodied in quiet quitting, what is required is a collective insistence on healthy work-life boundaries.

Granted, “doing the job one is paid for” can be hard to define, particularly for high-paid professions. The commonly-assumed social contract in areas such as law and tech is that an employer who pays handsomely is entitled to make similarly high demands.

Some might consider this is a case of willing buyer, willing seller: if employees choose to work a 70-hour week for a sky-high salary, so be it. But one could argue that the problem arises when that combination is the market floor, pricing out those who might be just as capable but prefer to work humane hours for lower pay.

For systemic change to happen, solidarity is crucial. We are all familiar with co-workers who “spoil the market” by sacrificing their lives for work, but that way lies destructive competition and burnout.

Both employees and employers must realise that it is unreasonable – and indeed, logically inconsistent – to make “going above and beyond” the default expectation. By all means, clock off when your work is done, do not take on more than your fair share, and enjoy your time off without feverishly checking your email. In doing so, be aware that you are not a quitter; you are doing your job, and anything else is a bonus.