Navigating verbal resignations poses complex challenges for HR, particularly when they occur in the heat of the moment. Here are some key things to consider when dealing with a case of ‘rage quitting’.

Have you ever found yourself on the brink of resigning from your role during a moment of anger or frustration?

HR should be attune to the possibility of people verbally resigning in the heat of the moment, or ‘rage quitting’, particularly in fast-paced, high-pressure work environments.

Cases of rage quitting can be tricky for HR to navigate. While some of these outbursts might come as a result of a genuine desire to terminate the employment relationship, others may be a temporary reaction to a difficult situation. 

So how can managers discern a fleeting emotional response from a legitimate verbal resignation?

Susan Sadler CPHR, Founder and CEO of Red Wagon Solutions, AHRI’s South Australian State President and upcoming speaker at AHRI’s National Convention and Exhibition, offers some tips for HR to identify and respond to rage quitting.

When does rage quitting constitute an official resignation?

When tensions run high at work, employees may express their frustrations in a way that might resemble a verbal resignation, but does not necessarily reflect their true intent.

Sadler notes that legal precedent has demonstrated on multiple occasions that employers should be wary of accepting verbal resignations at face value.

In 2021, an FWC case highlighted the fact that an employee verbally stating an intent to leave their role does not always qualify as an official resignation.

This case involved an employee at a community swimming pool who verbally resigned during a heated discussion with his employer. In the days following, the employee had a change of heart and let his employer know that he had decided not to resign and would be in as usual the next day. However, not long afterwards, the employer issued a termination letter to the worker which stated, “Your resignation has been formally accepted.”

The FWC ultimately found that the communications sent to the employer did not amount to a formal resignation, and that the employee had been unfairly dismissed. As a result, the employer was ordered to pay him four weeks’ pay as compensation.

“When people have heightened emotions, they often become very blinkered in terms of what they hear and what information they retain.” – Susan Sadler CPHR, AHRI South Australia State President and CEO of Red Wagon Solutions

In a comparable FWC case earlier this year, an HR manager was fined over $7500 due to a lack of procedural fairness following claims of bullying and an indirect verbal resignation (in this instance, via an employee’s spouse). This serves as a reminder of the potential financial consequences for individuals and employers in emotionally charged situations.

In this case, the employee, who had been with the company for nearly five years, had been experiencing conflict with her manager and a colleague. Without being given notice, she was called to a performance management meeting, without the opportunity to bring a support person with her, after which she left work due to stress. 

The HR manager later called her to perform what he called a ‘welfare check’, and spoke with her husband, who informed him that she would not be returning to work. The HR manager assumed she had resigned based on this and did not confirm this assumption with her directly. 

Since the employee had previously clashed with the business over overtime concerns, the FWC concluded that this supposed ‘welfare check’ was in fact a tactic to “avail [the HR manager] of the first opportunity to remove her from the business”.

“This was a perfect example of a [case] where HR got too excited because resignation was the outcome they wanted. But they didn’t go through a process that was procedurally sound,” says Sadler. 

“The takeaway from that, and the general rule, is that those important employment conversations always have to be confirmed in writing… Process and structure are everyone’s friend, including the person who’s exiting the organisation.”

As well as the individual fine imposed on the HR manager, the organisation was fined $37,000.

How should HR respond to rage quitting?

Impulsive verbal resignations tend to occur in emotionally charged circumstances, meaning it’s important for HR to think carefully before putting their problem-solving hat on.

“If you’re trying to get your message across all the time, that often just aggravates and heightens [the situation]. So let them say what they need to say,” says Sadler.

“Whatever the conversation is that you’re having, when people have heightened emotions they often become very blinkered in terms of what they hear and what information they retain.”

Rage quitting is also a strong sign that you should be checking in on the employee’s safety and wellbeing regardless of whether you think the resignation is legitimate, she says. 

“From a care perspective, we need to ensure that our people are okay and safe. We also need to do that from a risk mitigation perspective because if it goes to some sort of claim, you want to demonstrate that you’ve had those conversations.”

Once HR has heard and understood what has driven the employee to quit, Sadler advises showing clear acknowledgement of their issues and appreciation of their point of view, then following up with a formal letter or email confirming what was discussed.

“Then, at some stage, [we need to] seek written confirmation of their resignation. And if they say, ‘No, I didn’t mean it,’ then it’s not in anyone’s interest to push back on that and say, ‘Well, you’ve verbally resigned now, so that’s it.’”

In instances of rage quitting, as with most cases of workplace conflict, HR is tasked with striking a difficult balance between being empathetic and protecting the employer’s interests, she says.

“We forget the [emotional] impact of these things on our operational leaders, and that also goes for us in HR. Those are hard conversations, and we need to support each other and protect ourselves, but without building up a wall that makes it impersonal.”

Sadler’s own strategy for maintaining this balance comes down to reflection. By looking back on your own past experiences and challenges that triggered an emotional response, it’s easier to put yourself in the shoes of the employee and understand their perspective, she says.

The circumstances that drove the employee to quit may well have involved strong emotions on both sides, meaning that it’s crucial to give yourself the space to reflect in the moment.

“Most of the time, we feel like we need to respond and make a decision on the spot,” she says. “But very rarely do we really have to do that. 

“You can always ask for a break, or call a second meeting or confirm it in writing. Taking the time to consider is really valuable for HR – we just need to slow down.”

Hear more from Susan Sadler at this year’s AHRI National Convention and Exhibition in August. Book your spot today.