Abstract
Background/context: The workplace trend of “quiet quitting” has gained widespread attention in both media and academic discourse. However, the phenomenon is often framed in binary terms: either as an act of boundary-setting for well-being or as laziness and withdrawal. These reductive narratives neglect the broader systemic and ethical conditions that shape contemporary work.
Research aims: This research explores how quiet quitting is narratively constructed in news media, using framing theory and the ethics of care, to uncover assumptions in public discourse.
Method: A thematic analysis was conducted on 30 news articles to identify dominant definitions and framing of quiet quitting.
Results and Findings: Media coverage frequently used a conflict frame and a moralising lens of individual failure. This framing rarely acknowledged the structural conditions prompting withdrawal, instead blame was individualised. Dominant metaphors and binaries were prevalent, such as Gen Z being lazy workers and the lazy vs ideal worker. When a more humanistic frame was adopted, quiet quitting was portrayed as a legitimate act of ethical boundary setting in response to overwork and the need to protect mental well-being. These narratives sometimes included the perspectives of marginalised groups. It was rare that the systemic issues of neoliberal expectations in workplaces was mentioned.
Conclusions and Implications: Reframing quiet quitting through the ethics of care challenges the dominant portrayals of it being laziness or rebellion. Instead, it recognises that boundary setting is a moral stance against exploitative work and is a response to systemic neglect of care. As media narratives shape public understanding and academic inquiry, there is a need for more justice-oriented approaches to workplace disengagement.