Quiet firing is a term coined to describe the process of managers subtly yet intentionally creating a negative work environment, with the aim of pushing employees to leave. It’s a way to make workforce cuts without any formal dismissal processes.
A better phrase to use for this is ‘stealth layoffs’, says Emily Rose McRae, senior director analyst at Gartner, as the goal is usually to get a large group of employees to leave en masse, rather than a specific individual.
“The term firing feels targeted, while the phrase stealth layoffs is much broader, and that’s how these tactics are used,” she says.
Why is quiet firing becoming more common?
The concept of quiet firing, or stealth layoffs, is not necessarily a new phenomenon, but it’s something we’re seeing more of at scale post-Covid says Claire Taylor-Evans, an employment partner at law firm Boyes Turner.
It may be used by an organization when it’s pivoted away from a specific sector or region, but wants to avoid announcing layoffs, or simply to “separate the wheat from the chaff,” she says.
“Why now? First off there’s a productivity and growth problem in the UK. You could take the view that employers are using these tactics – introducing higher performance targets, more in-office hours, firmer management – on the basis that if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen,” she says.
You’ve also got a swathe of employment law changing bringing in new employee protections, such as day one protection from unfair dismissal and removing the previous two-year qualifying period, she notes.
“Employers know how exposed they are to claims so will cynically seek to squeeze individuals out in more nuanced, passive-aggressive, and ultimately damaging ways. Ultimately employers use quiet firing to avoid legal repercussions and dismissal claims.”
Companies making headlines
Several big tech firms have been making headlines in recent years for their perceived quiet firing. Back in 2022, Meta was accused of covertly reducing staff under the guise of reorganizing departments, while in 2024 a senior AWS developer accused the firm of quiet firing. Since then, Amazon has announced a new five days in office requirement, which has compounded accusations.
A recent study showed that return to office (RTO) mandates are being used as a key way to push employees to leave. A survey by BambooHR found that as many as a quarter of VP and C-suite executives hope harsher mandates will mean that a percentage of staff quit.
Pros and cons of quiet firing
Big tech companies may choose quiet firing or stealth layoffs as a strategy to reduce staff spending and avoid severance pay-out costs. If managed well, it can help maintain investor confidence and keep stock prices up.
Unsurprisingly, there are also major downsides to quiet firing including a loss of trust in leadership and lower morale, which can lead to reduced productivity. Furthermore, this broad-brush approach to lowering headcount means an organization has little control over who leaves and could lead to a potential brain drain of key talent.
Trying to keep a lid on staff cuts can simply compound issues for leaders. Though not an example of quiet firing, the case of recent PwC layoffs underlines the risk of opaque leadership decisions on cutting staff. According to the Financial Times, the affected staff were told they mustn’t inform colleagues why they’re leaving and should follow ‘suggested wording’ in any goodbye messages.
“The move backfired on the big four accountancy firm,” says Mohammad Osama, CEO of recruitment firm GRG. “Any semblance of silence was lost to the negative publicity, which is worse than if it had simply announced the layoffs publicly and taken its lumps.”
“Tech companies depend on highly skilled talent for innovation and future leadership roles,” notes Dr Rochelle Haynes, founder and CEO at Crowd Potential Consulting. “These workers are constantly sought after by several firms and therefore have a lot of agency and power in the job market. Their decision around where to work is not solely driven by monetary benefits, but also by culture, purpose and values.”
“I believe this is why silent layoffs won’t be a bigger issue over time,” says McRae. “For many companies, the discomfort of not having any control over who leaves is going to create pain points they’d rather avoid.”
How to spot quiet firing
Toxic behavior by a manager or demanding new rules for employees are two possible indications you’re being targeted for quiet firing. Other signs include being overlooked or undermined in meetings, a major shift in management communication, being assigned to projects well below your pay grade, or conversely to tasks so hard you’re set up to fail, notes Taylor-Evans.
An employee’s main recourse in these situations is to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal, as quiet firing is something that’s hard to reverse.
Rena Magdani, national head of employment, pensions and immigration at UK law firm Freeths explains the options open to workers. “The employee is entitled to resign and treat themselves as having been unfairly dismissed if their employer is acting in a way calculated to provoke this as quiet firing runs the risk of breaching the duty of trust and confidence of the employee.
“However, these claims can be difficult to prove,” she continues. “Strategies an employee might use to obtain include making a data subject access request, or a disclosure request in employment tribunal proceedings to locate any documentary evidence of a quiet firing agenda by your employer.”
Taylor-Evans adds that employees who suspect they’re being targeted for quiet firing should document individual incidents as supporting evidence for their claim down the line.
On occasion, there is another approach employees can take. Magdani notes that if the employer’s quiet firing strategy involves a breach of an express contractual term, such as a contractual right to a pay rise, then you could make a claim for breach of that contractual term without resigning. But whether you’d want to stay is another matter entirely.
It’s important to note that there are also occasions when a business may make internal changes for the right reason, which could lead to worries of quiet firing from staff.
In these scenarios, the best strategy for employers to address such concerns, and maintain a positive work environment, is clear, transparent communication.
It’s important that the need for these changes is constantly and clearly communicated to employees, says Haynes, who adds that where possible employees should be given some say and agency to define the nature of these changes. This empowerment can go a long way in maintaining a positive environment during the process.
