'The problem with this sort of approach is it may result in greater damages to the employer beyond a severance package'
By now, many have heard of “quiet quitting” and “quiet promoting” but there is a new term being bandied about that employers should pay attention to: “quiet firing.”
Fifty-six per cent of managers said they currently have employees who report to them that they wish they could fire, found a survey of 1,007 full-time managers and 1,003 full-time employees in the U.S. in September by JobSage.
Furthermore, almost one-third (29 per cent) of managers reported they have “quiet fired” employees in the past.
While “quiet quitting” may be a problem for employers, workers who engage in it have seen improved work-life balance, found another survey.
What is quiet firing?
But what exactly does this mean?
“It’s the opposite side of the coin of ‘quiet quitting… [and] refers to slowly pushing out or alienating a person in an organization to the point where they feel like they need to leave,” says Katie Duncan, content manager at JobSage in Austin, Texas.
“It can look like a number of things: reducing the workload to the point where an employee no longer feels challenged; failing to provide any kind of meaningful growth plan; giving them an overall lack of direction on the job that they’re doing; passing an employee over for a raise even when it’s deserved.”
More than half of employees (53 per cent) don’t have long-term career discussions, according to JobSage and 37 per cent of workers lack regular one-on-one talks with their managers.
This indicates there is great turmoil in some workplaces, says Duncan.
“While it doesn’t necessarily mean that the majority of managers are setting out to purposely quiet fire employees, it could indicate that a lot more employers may be unintentionally creating less-than-optimal employee experiences.”
Legal risks for employers
While the term may be a new one, this has been happening for some time, says an employment lawyer.
“The idea is as old as time, basically,” says Arthur Zeilikman, founder and director of Zeilikman Law in Toronto.
“Let’s say a supervisor tries to get the employee to quit through various series of actions such as they would diminish duties or take away from the prestige of the job or increase the workload to unmanageable levels or give performance reviews that are unwarranted or ignore the employee for instance, in correspondence and email communications — taking a passive aggressive-approach to make the employee leave.”
But by engaging in this type of workplace action, the employer opens itself up to legal risk, according to Zeilikman. “There is an answer to it in Ontario law and it’s called constructive dismissal.”
When employees are let go via termination, there are a number of obligations that must be satisfied by the employer, he says, and the same circumstances arise in constructive dismissals.
“The problem also with this sort of approach by employers is that it actually may result in greater damages to the employer beyond merely what would amount to a severance package,” says Zeilikman.
“For instance, an employer can create a toxic work environment, which may or may not amount to harassment, which may result in various other forms of damages; it may result in allegations of bad-faith conduct, maybe even aggravated damages. If it rises to an even more intentional level of intending to produce some sort of harm upon the employee, then it can actually result in general damages and punitive damages.”
“In reality, it’s kind of a sneaky approach to try to get the employee to leave to avoid liability — but it can actually backfire against the employer,” he says.
While there are no statistics about this phenomenon in Canada, it’s quite common, says Zeilikman.
“Let’s say the employee’s employed for 10 years and they have a good working relationship with their supervisor, and a new supervisor comes along and the new supervisor does not get along with the employee and they try to enforce new standards and new norms to essentially make the employee quit. They enforce the standards in a bad-faith manner and it’s a very common scenario, unfortunately.”
Detrimental effect
Despite these risks, some supervisors may consider quiet firing as a way to solve a longstanding issue with an employee.
“Firing an employee can cost money for a company if they have to give out severance packages, and terminations aren’t exactly pleasant experiences for either party, so doing it quietly like this is oftentimes easier than the alternative of either laying off or firing an employee,” says Duncan.
But the effect on the workplace can move beyond the individual worker-supervisor dynamic, according to Duncan.
“It worsens the situation for everyone. It can affect morale, productivity and ultimately just the entire company culture. Quiet firing worsens any issues you’re trying to solve. For example, if you have an underperforming employee, inattention probably isn’t going to make them work any harder.”
Many employees have been saddled with increased workloads but not higher pay, found another survey.
Better solutions
When a manager is unhappy about a worker’s performance, the solution is simple, says Zeilikman.
“The easiest thing to do is to be honest; it sounds cliche but honesty is very important for both parties, the employer and the employee.”
“A lot of times… the employee knows, they feel, they start to see the writing on the wall and it creates a spiraling effect to a breakdown of the employment relationship. If there are indeed concerns as far as the employer is concerned, the employer should have a civil discussion with the employee if they have genuine concerns relating to performance or standards,” he says.
For HR, “you have to create and foster a culture of growth,” says Duncan.
“Make sure managers and employees have tools and resources to create growth plans and have frequent opportunities for feedback and just really have open and honest communication.”
