“Quiet quitting” has been the new trend, particularly among young adults on social media. Described as the “antidote to hustle culture,” the movement rose as a repercussion of burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But what exactly does quiet quitting look like and what are quiet quitters’ real attitudes toward work performance? 

The definition of the term has been up for debate, with some stating that the goal is to intentionally reduce your work output with the intent to quit in the near future. However, according to Zain Khan, a New York-based engineer who viralized the term quiet quitting on TikTok, quiet quitting means “you are still performing your duties, but you are no longer subscribing to the hustle culture mentality that work has to be your life.” This can look like logging out at the end of the work day or not picking up extra tasks to improve your performance records.

There has been discourse as to whether quiet quitting is actually feasible for all workers or if it is a glaring sign of privilege for a few. It cannot be ignored that many who advocate for quiet quitting on social media are financially stable younger adults who primarily work in tech, in business, or are self-employed. Many work at companies that offer job security and the flexibility to work remotely. According to Tech Target, The Great Resignation, an economic movement that largely lasted from April 2021 to 2022, resulted in a mass exodus of two types of workers from their jobs for different reasons: those in business and tech sectors experienced a lack of fulfillment from their jobs, while those in the hospitality, retail, and food industries experienced reduced hours and job insecurity. 

But for many others, quiet quitting or resigning from a job is not an option, especially for minimum wage workers in service roles. Job security is crucial for some in order to provide for their children or pay back loans, and they cannot afford to do the bare minimum. Working harder in order to perform higher in the event of future layoffs may be a decision they make for the sake of their family and themselves. Therefore, many also criticize quiet quitters for sitting back and being passive instead of advocating for change, especially on behalf of those who cannot afford to quiet quit.

There are two main perspectives when it comes to judging quiet quitters — the line is often drawn by age and socioeconomic status. As quiet quitting encourages you to only do what is outlined in your job title, many older employers view quiet quitters poorly and express that they would not want to hire someone who is satisfied with the 9-to-5 mentality. Prior generations did not necessarily work harder or longer because they wanted to, but rather to keep their jobs. There was previously a stronger sense of loyalty to your company as well as expectations to pick up more work if you completed it early. The other perspective includes those who advocate that a more balanced work life should be the norm. Often, this view is correlated with the younger generation who blame companies for setting unrealistic expectations at the cost of their personal life after work hours.

Regardless of who and why such different definitions and opinions of quiet quitting exist, one thing most can agree upon is that the pandemic forced many people to reevaluate how they were dividing their time and if their current jobs were fulfilling for them.

Ultimately, it is good that both companies and workers are prioritizing mental health, yet I think that quiet quitting is much more nuanced than the media portrays it to be. Based on my personal experience interning in the tech industry, I do agree that life is so much more than work and that it is important to invest time into my hobbies and mental health. However, I cannot advocate for this without acknowledging the privilege I have to do so, and the same applies to others in similar situations.

In my opinion, quiet quitting is a misnomer as it focuses on the action instead of the goal, especially since the actions are not “one size fits all” and rather what work-life balance looks like for each individual person. National Public Radio asked listeners and readers for alternative names and received some pretty great ideas: “working to rule,” “working at work” and “DYJ: doing your job.” Although systemic change takes time and continuous effort, rebranding the movement with a more accurate name seems like a good start.