When silence replaces feedback, employees are often pushed towards the exit without warnings or paperwork. Quiet firing has been gaining momentum in recent years and reshaping how workplaces manage departures.
When it comes to modern workplaces, it is no longer defined solely by promotions, appraisals and formal exits, but it is shaped by what is left unsaid.
Employees find themselves excluded from meetings, stripped of responsibilities, and left without guidance, yet employed, technically. This emerging pattern, often unnoticed at first, avoids confrontation, raising questions about ethics, leadership and workplace culture.
Understanding Quiet Firing
Quiet firing is a managerial tactic where an employee is pushed out of the organisation rather than formally dismissed. Instead of direct performance conversations or clear decisions, organisations have started withdrawing opportunities and limiting responsibilities.
Unlike a layoff process, quiet firing thrives in ambiguity. There is no official notice, and no formal reasoning; the silence has become the strategy. As workplaces navigate economic pressures, this tactic sidesteps key aspects of potential disputes, obligations and documentation.
Ankit Aggarwal, Founder of Unstop, explains, “The idea of ‘quiet firing’ exists because too many organisations choose avoidance over honesty. It is not an HR policy; it is the outcome of weak feedback systems and leadership discomfort.”
“When performance gaps are not addressed directly, employees are slowly side-lined, creating prolonged anxiety, disengagement, and a loss of trust that is far more damaging than a clear, respectful exit,” he elaborated.
Why Is Quiet Firing Gaining Momentum?
According to the Gallup State of the Global Workplace Report (June 2024), a significant number of employees worldwide feel unsupported, emotionally detached and disconnected from their organisations. This disengagement does not merely enable quiet firing; it fuels it.
“Work has become increasingly distributed, and asynchronous communication has made it easier for managers to disengage without appearing overtly hostile,” the report notes. The growing trend highlights that silence replaces confrontation, and inaction substitutes for leadership, creating a perfect storm for subtle exclusion.
Sanjeeta Mohta, Finance and Talent Manager at Learning Spiral, adds, “Direct termination conversations are often avoided because managers fear conflict, potential legal exposure, or emotional reactions from employees. Sometimes, management assumes indirect pressure will encourage voluntary resignations, but this is not a healthy approach.”
How To Recognise Quiet Firing?
Quiet firing never comes with a single event; it often appears as a series of cumulative actions, such as:
- Decision-making and access to key projects are withdrawn
- Positive and constructive feedback disappears
- Promotions, appraisals, or training opportunities vanish
- Responsibilities are reassigned without explanation
The employee remains on the payroll but is functionally invisible. Their presence is felt but not fully valued. Aggarwal remarks, “Avoidance should never be mistaken for empathy. Real empathy lies in clarity, fairness, and timely communication. Strong organisational cultures are built on transparency, not silence.”
Signs Employees Might Be Experiencing Quiet Firing
Many professionals unknowingly endure quiet firing.
- Managers no longer provide mentorship or guidance, and tasks become monotonous, irrelevant or low-impact.
- Career growth discussions are not excluded altogether.
- Micro-management increases without recognition and feedback, focusing on criticism rather than constructive improvement.
These patterns slowly erode confidence and morale. The ambiguity makes it nearly impossible for employees to address issues proactively, creating stress and uncertainty.
Is It A Trend Or A Tactic?
Quiet firing is more than just a “trend”; it is a serious workplace issue. The behaviour itself is not new; what has now shifted is the scale and normalisation of such practices.
In the past, physical office presence and clearer hierarchies limited avoidance behaviours. Remote work, complex reporting structures, and digital communication channels now allow exclusion and marginalisation to occur systematically and silently.
Mohta explains, “Quiet firing is rarely a formal HR strategy; it is usually the result of managerial failure. HR departments in most organisations do not recognise it officially, but they must intervene because it erodes trust, compliance, and organisational culture.”
What Is The Impact Of Quiet Firing On Employees?
Quiet firing is destabilising psychologically. Uncertainty quietly replaces closure, and self-doubt can lead to prolonged anxiety. Unlike formal termination, where there is at least finality, quiet firing keeps employees confused between hope and rejection, often for months.
The Gallup 2024 report reinforces this point, noting that employee disengagement correlates strongly with higher turnover intentions and lower productivity, creating a vicious cycle that organisations inadvertently showcase through quiet firing.
Why Organisations Should Pay Close Attention
While quiet firing might seem like a convenient solution to restructuring or underperformance, it carries long-term risks.
Aggarwal emphasises, “HR teams can prevent quiet firing by institutionalising clear performance systems: regular check-ins, documented improvement plans, and consistent manager enablement. When feedback is continuous, and decisions are timely, no one is left feeling quietly pushed out.”
Mohta adds, “Organisations must implement transparent performance management systems. Regular check-ins, auditing job descriptions, and manager training create a culture where employees are engaged, and underperformance is addressed ethically. Avoidance undermines both trust and integrity.”
How To Prevent Quiet Firing?
Industry experts agree that the actual antidote lies in communication and transparency.
- By establishing clear performance management systems
- Providing manager training on ethical exit conversations
- Conducting regular feedback sessions
- Ensuring recognition and equal access to responsibilities.
“How organisations handle underperformance and exits defines the integrity of their leadership and the credibility of their culture,” Aggarwal notes. “Clarity, fairness, and timely communication prevent ambiguity from turning into anxiety or disengagement.”
Mohta concludes, “HR must institutionalise systems that identify early signs of disengagement. Regular check-ins, ethical manager training, and structured audits ensure employees feel valued and know where they stand. Silence is never the answer.”
Quiet firing is not just another trend; it is a deep issue. While it may appear cost-effective and low risk in the short term, its long-term consequences are profound. As workplaces evolve, it is important to maintain transparency and accountability, that replace silence.
This is an important factor in helping employees feel supported. If performance concerns are addressed constructively and exits are handled with dignity and fairness, organisations can foster trust and build cultures where difficult conversations are not avoided.
