The risks to businesses of quiet firing
While "quiet quitting" has been getting loads of media attention in recent months (see my column of Aug. 24), another workplace trend which also originated on TikTok is making headlines too. "Quiet firing" is not exactly the opposite of quiet quitting, but the two are often related.
Quiet quitting is based on actions (or lack of actions) by an employee and quiet firing refers to set of actions (or lack of actions) by an employee's manager. Both are detrimental to an organization as they signal a concerning breakdown in the employer-employee relationship.
Quiet firing refers to employees being "forced" to quit their jobs instead of being terminated by the employer. It's normally proceeded by a combination of tactics that might include a lack of communication with the employee, a failure to invite the employee to important meetings, a decline in performance-related feedback, and a lack of opportunities for pay raises, developmental opportunities or promotions.
At its worst quiet firing can also involve untenable working conditions, extreme work hours, unnecessarily harsh discipline or unwarranted blame for job-related mistakes.
Many employment law attorneys and HR professionals believe that quiet firing is essentially the same as "constructive discharge," a relatively well-known legal term. While the two may not be identical, they do share common characteristics. Neither technique should be intentionally utilized by employers to encourage employees to "choose" to leave their organization.
There is considerable debate regarding the timing of this disturbing trend. Some argue that quiet firing is a response to the power struggle that has given employees more freedom and flexibility in today's competitive marketplace. Others place the blame more directly on weak managers.
The former explanation would indicate the trend is employer-driven and potentially wider-spread because it is actively condoned. The latter puts the responsibility back on managers who are poor communicators, irresponsible, incompetent, or have quietly quit themselves.
In either case, it is up to the organization's leadership to investigate the root causes of quiet firing and take immediate action to prevent it. Allowing negative behaviors to remain unchecked will erode the engagement, productivity, morale and retention of every employee who witnesses it in the workplace.
If you are a leader who believes quiet firing may be a concern in your organization, make sure your managers receive training on a regular basis. Ensure that they understand the importance of giving employees both positive and constructive feedback and are educated in the best ways to deliver these vital messages.
Many managers struggled with the transition to hybrid workplaces and no longer feel connected to their team members. Again, training is essential to preparing managers to tackle these new challenges.
In addition, remember that while all employees should participate in annual anti-harassment training, managers are held to a higher standard, requiring more comprehensive training to minimize the risk of quiet firing having a disparate impact on protected classes of employees.
If you are an employee who believes you may be experiencing quiet firing, start by expressing your concerns to your manager and asking for more frequent feedback. Should that not be a viable option, engage with HR or your organization's leadership directly.
Quiet firing has far-reaching consequences, so it's incumbent on organizations to prioritize an end to this trend.
• Mary Lynn Fayoumi, CAE, SPHR, SHRM-SCP, is President and CEO of HR Source.