I wonder whether “quiet quitting” is a communication cop out. TikToker @zkchillin describes the term as “quitting the idea of going above and beyond at work.” He explains, “You’re still performing your duties, but you’re no longer subscribing to the hustle culture mentality that work has to be your life. The reality is, it’s not.”

This sounds like having a work-life balance, and I’m all for it. But the hyperbolic language (and alliteration) makes me curious about how this decision gets communicated. In professional jobs, position descriptions are flexible documents, with the last bullet typically, “other duties as assigned.” How do employees decline responsibilities, particularly tasks they were expected to—and had been willing to—perform in the past?

If an employee feels overburdened, it’s their responsibility to raise concerns over time. That takes courage and integrity and is a more mature and direct strategy than what sounds like passive-aggressively not doing work. Without that conversation, when output is compared to previous work, the employee will appear to be slacking even if they are meeting job responsibilities.

What is the impact on others? If tasks are openly renegotiated, then a team could work more efficiently. Instead, “quiet quitting” misses this opportunity and implies that some work might get tossed to other team members.

I also wonder how long this strategy will last if layoffs become more prevalent in a down economy. Employees have the upper hand now, but that won’t always be the case.