THE PITFALLS OF QUIET FIRING

Merilee Kern highlights the negative connotations of ‘quiet firing’ on employees and organisations

The phenomenon of quiet quitting, which refers to employees doing the least amount of work required for their jobs simply to get by until they opt to leave or are let go, has gained its fair share of attention in recent years.

And now, another clandestine workplace practice is underway; it’s known as ‘quiet firing.’

This subtle and equally insidious practice is described by employees as being ‘nudged out’ amid workplace culture and conditions that enforce voluntary resignations among certain employees – rather than staffers being formally terminated.

There are many ways in which companies can passively pursue quiet firing with many of them associated with unwelcome changes.

For example, according to the Harvard Business Review (HBR), changes that typify quiet firing often include those related to job responsibilities, compensation, working conditions and supervisor communication.

The report includes specific examples such as reassigning important job responsibilities to other employees; pay cuts or not offering annual bonuses or pay raises; changing work hours or regular shifts; forcing relocation; evaluating an employee unfairly by means of excessively harsh feedback or constant criticism of work; and not giving employees credit for their work or worse, giving it to others.

Findings by Pew Research uphold these contentions: “Low pay, a lack of opportunities for advancement and feeling disrespected at work,” it says, were the main reasons for Americans to quit their jobs during its study period.

“Quiet firing, a paradigm that has emerged in recent discussions about workplace dynamics, refers to subtle and often indirect ways in which organisations push employees out of their roles,” notes relational leadership and management authority Cheryl Mason.

She is an acclaimed TEDx speaker and author, and the Chief Catalyst of Catalyst Leadership Management. The firm helps leaders function with authenticity and empathy, to establish an impactful morale boosting and people centric management approach.

Mason says: “Unlike traditional firing, which is direct and straightforward, quiet firing employs passive-aggressive tactics such as giving employees unmanageable workloads, excluding them from key projects or micromanaging them to the point of frustration.”

“While this approach might seem like an easy way to avoid confrontation, it can have detrimental effects on both the organisation and its leaders,” she explains.

Her widely hailed book titled ‘Dare to Relate: Leading with a Fierce Heart’ centres on cultivating strong workforce relationships.

“Quiet firing hurts organisations by adversely impacting outcomes, deflating employee morale, damaging reputations and costing money, to name a few of the counterproductive effects,” Mason asserts.

ADVERSE OUTCOMES When companies quietly fire employees, they risk losing valuable talent. These people often possess unique skills, knowledge and experience that is crucial to the success of the business.

By pushing them out, organisations not only lose these assets but also disrupt workflow and project timelines. The remaining employees may struggle to fill the gaps, leading to lower productivity and suboptimal outcomes.

LOW MORALE Quiet firing creates a toxic work environment where employees feel undervalued and unsupported. This can lead to a drop in morale as employees become disengaged and demotivated.

When workers see their colleagues being quietly pushed out, an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty is generated. And this can lead to increased stress, lower job satisfaction and higher staff turnover, all of which are detrimental to organisational health.

BAD REPUTATION Companies that engage in quiet firing risk damaging their reputation. Word spreads quickly in professional networks and employees who feel mistreated are likely to share their experiences.

This can lead to negative reviews on platforms such as Glassdoor, making it difficult for the company to attract top talent. A tarnished reputation can also affect relationships with clients, partners and other stakeholders, and harm the organisation’s prospects.

MORE EXPENSES Quiet firing is not a cost-effective strategy because the process of hiring and training new employees is expensive and time-consuming.

When experienced employees are pushed out, businesses have to invest in recruiting and onboarding replacements.

Additionally, the loss of institutional knowledge can lead to costly mistakes and inefficiencies – and in the long run, quiet firing can result in higher operational costs and lower levels of profitability.

“Quiet firing might seem like an easy way to manage difficult employees but it is a shortsighted approach that can have far-reaching negative consequences,” Mason cautions.

This can include legal ramifications too. According to the HBR report, if employees suspect that they’re being quiet fired, they can seek legal help.

It states: “Sometimes consulting with an attorney or union representative can help you assess the severity of a situation and determine the best way to handle it. In addition, sometimes the knowledge that you have consulted with an attorney or union representative is enough to deter a supervisor from continuing down the path of quiet firing.”

Mason recommends a more empathetic EQ driven human resources approach.

What’s more, she suggests: “Instead of taking the quiet firing approach, leaders should focus on understanding employee needs, strategically allocating resources, building strong relationships, and supporting and developing their teams. By doing so, they can create a positive work environment that fosters engagement, productivity and long-term success.”

By developing a workplace culture in this way, leaders can avoid creating a toxic environment that’s exemplified by poor communication, ineffective leadership, low morale and high staff turnover.

Indeed, a supportive and nurturing atmosphere founded on open dialogue with approachable managers can greatly enhance staff satisfaction and retention.

This type of respectful, sensitive and employee centric approach can also improve individual and team performance, reduce absenteeism, bolster reputation, and thwart other costly budget busters that undermine the success and sustainability of an organisation.

So don’t quiet fire; instead, enthusiastically inspire!