I saw a segment discussing it on the news so it occurred to me that this term had entered the general lexicon. My understand of the definition is this: it's the refusal to do more than the minimum that is required of you at your job.
The nuance has always been that this behaviour is necessary for regular people to cope with our late stage capitalistic society, where our labour is undervalued and the worker-employer relationship is inherently fraught.
I equate this to setting boundaries, others have called it separating your ego from your work. I think it's healthy to do this. Realizing how unrealistic it is to find true fulfilment at your job, while also accepting that you will always need money, is just part of adult life – unless you're incredibly privileged. It's useful to have a term that encapsulates this.
But what I dislike about “quiet quitting” (as a term) is that it's biased towards the employer. It equates the above behaviour to quitting, or leaving your job. It suggests you're now a ghost or seat filler collecting money for nothing, when you're still literally doing your core work.
I would say by the given definition, I quietly quit my job in 2020. It's true I do the absolute bare minimum, but my work is still crucial and valuable, and I'm confident of that.
So here's my challenge: can anyone even articulate why I would do more than the minimum? What incentive is there to go “above and beyond” when I get no recognition or compensation? To me, this speaks to the exploitative tendency of all employers, as well as their misguided expectation that we should show gratitude for the opportunity to be paid for our labour, which makes less sense the more you think about it.