While ‘quiet firing’ might just be a constructive dismissal in disguise, the fact that it’s gaining traction in the media could signal that a bigger issue is brewing.

For a few weeks, people couldn’t stop talking about the ‘quiet quitting’ movement. Now, as is the case with most trends, that has been surpassed by a more concerning phenomenon: ‘quiet firing’.

While quiet quitting is somewhat of a misnomer – employees aren’t actually quitting, they’re just dialing back their efforts – quiet firing is exactly what it sounds like. Managers covertly stop developing, engaging and/or including certain team members they want to get rid of in the hope that they’ll voluntarily resign.

I know what you’re thinking – this just sounds like a constructive dismissal dressed up as a ‘new’ trend. And you’re right. Bosses behaving badly – or lazy leadership – has been commonplace for decades now.

“This is definitely a buzzword,” says Susan Sadler CPHR, Founder and CEO of Red Wagon Solutions and AHRI’s South Australian State President.

“I think it’s concerning that we’re terming it ‘quiet firing’. It feels a bit flippant because I think it should be called out as a failure to manage staff properly.”

One reason people might be trying to capture this behaviour in a catch-all phrase is because it could be becoming more widespread. 

For example, even though ‘quiet quitting’ just means employee disengagement, because we’ve recently seen a huge portion of employees reassessing their boundaries and expectations off the back of the pandemic, we needed a new name for it.

Could we have come up with something better? Sure. But that’s the nature of internet trends. One person’s brainchild becomes a reality for thousands of others.

Perhaps the same thing is happening with quiet firing. People are seeing or experiencing it more than before, so they’re latching onto any phrasing that encapsulates their experience.

A recent LinkedIn news poll, surveying over 20,000 members, found that over 80 per cent had experienced or seen quiet firing in action. And HRM gathered its own data, from 130 respondents in the AHRI LinkedIn Lounge, and found that 20 per cent had experienced ‘quiet firing’ themselves and 61 per cent had seen it happen.

Why are we hearing more about quiet firing?

So what’s driving this toxic (and often illegal) behaviour from bosses?

Sadler says it could be employers’ responses to the quiet quitting movement. If employees are choosing to revoke their discretionary efforts, perhaps employers feel entitled to do the same.

But she’s not convinced this is happening more so than in the past. She just thinks we’re more attuned to it now.

“Perhaps we’re just calling it out more because there’s more attention placed on leadership in a remote or hybrid environment,” she says.

“I think it’s concerning that we’re terming it ‘quiet firing’. It feels a bit flippant because I think it should be called out as a failure to manage staff properly.” – Susan Sadler CPHR

As we’ve discussed at length, many employees have had more power than they’ve been used to since working through the pandemic. This has seen management styles more closely examined in a bid to respond to employees’ raised expectations and retain staff during the Great Resignation.

“When we all started working from home we heard a lot of advice like, ‘Make sure you’re having regular one-on-one meetings with your team’, but that should have been what we were doing already.

“We should have always been giving feedback and our time, and communicating clearly with our teams, but it’s getting more attention because of the pandemic.”

Sadler also says managers could be engaging in quiet firing because they themselves are feeling disengaged with their work. As HRM unpacked last week, people tend to display counterproductive behaviours when they’re not feeling stimulated and challenged themselves.

“They might also be receiving a similar lack of engagement and support from their manager,” she says.

In many cases, it could also come down to lazy leadership. Managers might be faced with an underperformer and instead of putting in the time to develop them, they just cut them out of meetings, stop developing them and hope they’ll get the hint and leave.

“I don’t think it’s fair to think people will get the hint. They either think they’re performing well because no one has told them otherwise, or they’re doing nothing and loving it because they’re not being pulled up about it.”

The manager’s hope is often that they can ‘start fresh’ with a new employee.

“I’ve definitely seen that happen,” says Sadler. “Even when I’ve given strong advice about the risks of doing so – and told them that it doesn’t work. 

“Sometimes the underlying issue is that they want to avoid confrontation, they’re lazy or they want to be known as the ‘nice boss’. It could be one or all of those things. But they’re the manager. That’s their job.”

Not only do they have a responsibility to that individual, they also need to consider the productivity and wellbeing of the broader team.

“Reed Hastings is the founder and CEO of Netflix. In his book with Erin Meyer, he talks about the idea that a team will perform to the level of its worst performer. So the manager who wants to avoid an underperformer and hopes they’ll just go away is dragging down the performance levels of the rest of their team.”

That can result in attrition risks, she adds, because the other people in the team become fed up with the inaction of the manager.

“The disenfranchisement of the rest of the team and their disengagement or poor performance are the things that will cost the business.”

Risks to consider

Part of HR’s role – arguably one of the most important parts – is to help the organisation mitigate risks that arise from complex people challenges. Quiet firing certainly falls into this category.

Other than the potential increase in voluntary turnover rates mentioned above, this behaviour can also result in a constructive or unfair dismissal claim, says Sadler.

“You could also end up with a bullying claim because there’s such a thing as bullying by exclusion. And there’s far more attention on worker’s psychological safety than there ever has been, so you can also end up with worker’s compensation claims.”

So what signs should HR professionals be on the lookout for to see if a manager might be trying to ‘quietly fire’ someone? Sadler shares some things for HR to monitor:

• Pay attention to how the manager interacts with their team members. Are they displaying favouritism or do they consistently call on the same employee for tasks? Are they dismissive of others or cold/abrupt in their tone?
• Are they setting superficial goals for employees? If they’re not giving people tasks designed to stretch and challenge them (i.e. they continue to lump people with boring tactical work), this could signal they’re not invested in their growth.
  
  “This would be evident in a performance review, or in the detail of the feedback they give in a performance review,” says Sadler.
• Do managers often cancel one-on-one meetings because they’re ‘too busy’? This might demonstrate that their team members aren’t a priority to them.
  
  While a cancelled meeting here and there isn’t cause for concern, if it’s becoming a habit it might be worth having HR step in and remind the manager that consistent touchpoints with employees are critical.
• Are managers taking notes of their one-on-one meetings?
  
  “HR could do spontaneous spot checks to see if there are records of development conversations taking place. If they are non-existent, that’s a problem. If they lack detail, then you can coach them on how to do it properly.”
  
  These notes are the first thing people will ask for when conducting an investigation into claims of poor behaviour.
  
  “I had a case a few years ago where a manager, who was an engineer and technically excelled in his role, but was not a ‘people person’, was accused of bullying by exclusion [by his subordinates].
  
  “He said had records of all the coaching conversations he’d been having, but there wasn’t anything noteworthy there. He didn’t have the details or evidence that he’d followed up on anything. This resulted in a bullying claim, an expensive investigation and two very disenfranchised employees.”

Read HRM’s article on creating two-path progression streams for employees.

Master the unpleasant conversation

Some managers have a tendency to focus on the employees at the extreme ends of the spectrum, says Sadler.

“It’s easy to focus on the people who are either performing really badly or really well. But managers need to spend time with the middle group too – and HR should remind them of that.”

This is especially important for the group that bad managers might be inclined to try and quietly fire – the underperformers, the people lacking drive or the annoying employee.

“No one wants to be told that they’re not performing well, but no one wants to be ignored either.

“HR needs to be understanding of the fact that not everyone is confident or has the skills to have these unpleasant conversations.”

HR should help coach managers to have those difficult conversations (see HRM’s guide here) with confidence and encourage them to view employee development as an investment in the company’s future success.

Perfection can be the enemy of progress and so can wilfully neglecting employees, says Sadler. 

Managers don’t need to have perfect, formalised processes for feedback conversations. Just be “consistent, authentic and human about it”.

Want to equip yourself with the skills to have difficult conversations at work with ease? Then sign up for AHRI’s short course.