It is imperative to understand the privileges in the workplace and address them for healthy work boundaries

The expectation from employees to work tirelessly for the company is a trend seen in various organisations. Employees are expected to work for more than their stipulated time and job description with few benefits. Quiet quitting is an upcoming phenomenon that challenges this mindset. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as “the activity of doing the work that you need to do in order to keep your job but doing it without great enthusiasm or effort, and without agreeing to do extra tasks” (Quiet Quitting, 2024). This translates to doing the bare minimum to ensure your job is secure.

It is necessary to understand the difference between quiet quitting and laziness. People who are in support of the phenomenon are usually branded as unambitious. The work done by the employee is still up to the mark and standard that is expected of them. The only difference is that the work accepted is strictly what the employee is expected to do. The phenomenon has sparked a considerable amount of debate regarding its implications and consequences in the field.

Understanding Quiet Quitting

Quiet quitting is a direct criticism of the normalised hustle culture. It promotes choosing yourself and your mental well-being over the profit of an organisation. Career advancement has always been a path filled with late work nights and pleasing the boss at the expense of one’s happiness and health. The quote “health is wealth” has lost all meaning in the race towards the next position. Quiet quitting questions the notion that career growth should come at a personal downfall.

While quiet quitting seems like a step towards stopping corporate exploitation, it is not accessible to everyone. Many employees do not have the licence to wage a war against the company they work for. The ability is dependent on a number of factors, including job security, financial stability, and the cultural and organisational context of one’s employment. These factors frequently relate to that of race, gender and social status, making quiet quitting a privilege that not everyone has. It comes from a place of privilege to be able to afford the backlash that comes with doing the bare minimum.

Security, Financial Stability

Job security is not a guarantee for various minorities all across the globe. Systemic inequities frequently result in persons of colour being overrepresented in lower-paying, less secure jobs. In such jobs, quiet quitting can be viewed as a challenge to the authorities or as a lack of commitment to the organisation. This could lead to massive backlashes like a hindrance in career growth or termination. Without financial stability, the risk far outweighs the benefits of quiet quitting for these employees.

Many employees do not have the licence to wage a war against the company they work for due to various reasons such as job security, financial stability

Some companies may believe that quiet quitting is placing healthy boundaries and accept it in their employees but that is not the case with all of them. Discrimination in the workplace is a well-known byproduct of stereotypes and biases based on sex, gender, caste, creed and colour. Finding a job is already difficult for people of minority, and quiet quitting will make their life harder and might cause problems in their workplace. For many, overperformance is not just a path to career success but also an essential strategy for combating workplace discrimination and gaining attention.

Advantages, Disadvantages

The establishment of clear boundaries is more plausible with a visible line between the time and effort one is willing to put in their work and in other settings. This leads to an improved mental and physical health (Dutt, 2024). Employees are pushed towards burnout with excessive expectations from work and minimal time for themselves. If they only take on what is the bare expectation, it will give them more time and energy for their favoured activities.

In hustle culture, doing the bare minimum is perceived negatively. Employees who quiet quit may face increased scrutiny from their peers and the management. This could lead to a loss of opportunities and promotions, gradually leading to job loss. Negative stereotypes and biases run rampant and quiet quitting may increase the likelihood of them turning negative.

Quiet quitting is a form of disengagement from work and the workplace. This disengagement can impact the organisation’s ability to meet its goals and stay relevant in the market, as a lack of dedication and enthusiasm from employees can translate into subpar performance. This may harm the productivity of the employee and thus the organisation. Doing the bare minimum can impact the morale and bonding of a team. It may influence the company culture. It hampers the organisation’s ability to unearth employees that have the potential for growth. It can also lead to a decrease in creativity while approaching a problem.

Double-edged Sword

Quiet quitting shines a light on a major discrepancy in the workplace: not everyone has the same privileges. For some, it might be a form of empowerment, but for others, it is a one-way ticket to worsening career growth. To understand the different privileges, more research needs to be done in how quiet quitting is impacting employee growth and work towards making a safer and inclusive work environment.

We can accomplish this by bridging the pay gap. Fostering a workplace where people are hired despite their age, sex, gender, caste and religion should be the primary goal. Diversity and inclusion initiatives are a starting step towards this. Unbiased hiring and promotions will ensure that people can have healthy work boundaries. Companies will, in doing so, create a safe environment where people can set boundaries.

Quiet quitting is a privilege not available to all. It has its advantages and disadvantages but is a step towards forming healthy work boundaries. It is imperative to understand the privileges in the workplace and address them accordingly. Fostering an environment of unbiased and fair opportunities will bridge the gap between the majority and the minority and allow the employees to thrive.

Authors: Ishita Deshmukh, undergraduate student at FLAME University, and Prof. Moitrayee Das, Faculty of Psychology at FLAME University