It rarely begins with a resignation letter or an intense conversation across a manager’s desk. Instead, it starts quietly; an unanswered email, a missed meeting, a message left on “seen.” In recent years,
workplaces across industries have witnessed a growing number of silent exits. Once considered unthinkable, leaving a job without notice is no longer an exception but a pattern being followed today.
While the “Great Resignation” captured global attention with mass voluntary exits, a more unsettling phenomenon has been emerging beneath the surface. Employees are disappearing without formally resigning.
This trend, often referred to as “ghost quitting” or “ghosting at work,” reflects a shift in how people experience employment, authority and psychological safety. At its core, this behaviour is not merely job hopping or poor manners; it is largely about fear, disengagement, exhaustion and a breakdown of trust between employees and organisations.
As younger generations enter the workforce and older structures struggle to adapt, traditional ideas of loyalty, notice periods, and professional exits are being reshaped quietly. Understanding why people are leaving without serving notice requires looking beyond surface-level assumptions and examining the emotional, psychological and systematic pressures shaping modern work.
From the Great Resignation to the Great Ghosting
In 2022, the world of work was already in flux. Millions of employees voluntarily quit their jobs in what came to be known as the “Great Resignation.” Employees were no longer hesitant to walk away from roles that felt misaligned with their lives. Amid this churn, employers began noticing something new and more disruptive.
Some employees were not resigning at all. They accepted job offers and never showed up. Others stopped responding to calls and emails, leaving teams scrambling to redistribute work and explain sudden absences. There was no notice, no farewell and no closure.
This phenomenon, ghosting in the workplace, borrowed its name from online dating culture, where one party abruptly cuts off communication without explanation. In professional settings, ghosting manifests when an employee disappears entirely, abandoning the formal resignation process that had long been considered a basic professional courtesy.
How Ghosting Takes Place Inside Organisations
The process is often deceptively ordinary. A company rolls out a job opening and receives hundreds of applications. Recruiters invest weeks interviewing candidates. After careful deliberation, an offer is made and accepted, but the new hire does not join or show up. Emails bounce back with silence, the role becomes vacant again, and the entire recruitment cycle must restart.
Why Employees Choose Silence Over Communication
At first glance, ghost quitting may appear irresponsible or unprofessional. Yet experts suggest that the reasons are far more complex. Ghosting, unlike formal resignation, requires no confrontation. For many employees, especially those already stretched thin, explaining their decision feels emotionally draining.
Conversations with managers often involve probing questions, guilt-inducing appeals, or attempts to negotiate a counteroffer. What should be a clean exit can quickly become an emotionally loaded experience. There is also fear of retaliation, damaged references or being labelled disloyal.
On a deeper level, society itself has grown less civil and more reactive. As social media normalises abrupt disengagement and conflict avoidance, these behaviours spill into professional life. The discomfort of an awkward conversation often outweighs the perceived benefits of “doing the right thing.”
The Traditional Exit
For decades, resigning followed an unsaid rule. Employees gave a notice period of a month, had a word with their managers and participated in exit interviews. Even when the conversation was uncomfortable, it offered a sense of closure and preserved professional relationships.
What Psychologists Say
From a mental health perspective, ghost quitting cannot be understood completely as a behavioural issue. According to Dr Gautami Naagabhiraya, Senior Psychiatrist at Kamineni Hospitals, ghost quitting reflects psychological disengagement rather than impulsivity.
“Impulsive resignation is emotionally driven and reactive,” she explains. “Absenteeism reflects avoidance, yet the individual usually remains mentally attached to the job. Ghost quitting is different. It reflects a stage where the individual is mentally exhausted, emotionally withdrawn, and unable to engage in communication.”
Dr Naagabhiraya emphasises that for many individuals, resignation itself demands emotional energy they no longer have. “Many people who ghost quit are already functioning under significant stress or burnout. In such a state, even a simple resignation email can feel overwhelming,” she notes. Silence becomes the least threatening option.
Chronic workplace stress, she adds, pushes the nervous system into survival mode. “When stress is persistent and unresolved, the brain begins to interpret the environment as unsafe. At that stage, the nervous system shifts from problem-solving to survival. Ghost quitting often represents a flight or freeze response.” From this viewpoint, ghost quitting is not deliberate disrespect but a sign of shutdown.
Is Ghost Quitting Self-Protection or Unprofessionalism?
The debate around ghost quitting often centres on professionalism. Employers argue that disappearing disrupts teams and damages trust. Mental health professionals urge a more nuanced interpretation.
“From a mental-health standpoint, ghost quitting is often a maladaptive form of self-protection,” says Dr Naagabhiraya. “While it may be labelled unprofessional, clinically it reflects an individual who has reached their psychological limit.” She clarifies that withdrawal is not a healthy coping strategy, but it is a signal. “It frequently indicates distress rather than disregard.”
The Gen Z Factor: Is This A Generational Shift or Structural Failure?
Dr Naagabhiraya points out that younger employees have grown up with greater awareness of mental health and lower tolerance for emotionally unsafe environments. “They are entering workplaces shaped by instability and reduced job security. At the same time, many lack experience in navigating conflict or structured exits,” she explains.
Similarly, Prof. Prachi Bhatt from FORE School of Management, New Delhi, stresses that ghost quitting should not be reduced to generational blame. “Burnout, unmet expectations, and feeling undervalued are key drivers,” she says. “There is often an incongruence between personal values and workplace culture.”
Prof. Bhatt distinguishes ghost quitting from absenteeism and impulsive resignation. “Absenteeism is not showing up, but not leaving the job. Impulsive resignation is sudden but communicated. Ghost quitting is cutting off communication entirely.”
According to her, prolonged stress keeps individuals in a heightened state of alert, eroding both physical and mental health. “In efforts to self-protect, such seemingly unprofessional behaviours may emerge.”
Quiet Quitting and Ghost Quitting: Are They The Same?
Often discussed alongside ghost quitting is the concept of “quiet quitting,” where employees do only what their job requires, rejecting hustle culture and unpaid overtime. Unlike ghost quitting, quiet quitting does not involve leaving a job, but disengaging emotionally.
Reports suggest that up to 85% of employees globally may be quietly quitting. While this allows organisations to function at a basic level, it erodes innovation and long-term competitiveness.
Both trends share common roots: burnout, lack of recognition, poor work-life balance, and misaligned values. Quiet quitting is a warning sign. Ghost quitting is what happens when those warnings go unheard.
Rethinking Exit Culture
Ghost quitting carries consequences. Employees risk burning bridges, losing references, forfeiting paid benefits, and damaging long-term credibility. Employers face operational disruption, financial loss, and declining morale among remaining staff. Yet the persistence of this trend suggests that deterrents alone will not solve the problem. As Prof. Bhatt notes, these behaviours “reflect broader changes in how work is valued and experienced.”
If organisations want to reduce ghost quitting, they must re-examine how exits are handled. Creating environments where employees feel heard long before they reach breaking point is key. Exit conversations should not feel manipulative.
Ghost quitting reflects a changing relationship between employees and workplaces rather than a single act of defiance. While it creates clear operational challenges for organisations, it also highlights deeper issues around stress, communication, expectations, and psychological safety at work. Experts suggest that when employees feel unheard, overwhelmed, or unsure of how their exit will be received, silence can feel like the easiest option.
