As the global economy continues to limp along, a new trend has arisen whereby companies engage in a tactic called “quiet firing” in order to reduce the size of the workforce without having to pay severance packages.
In South Africa, the term constructive dismissal is generally well understood, and employees are able to turn to the CCMA or Labour Court for relief if they believe they have been unfairly treated. But while a claim of constructive dismissal has to meet legal requirements of the definition (and requires proof that the employer was breaching contractual terms of employment), quiet firing is much broader, and harder to pin down and prove.
“At this stage, quiet firing is still mostly used in the USA to get employees to quit, instead of having to fire or retrench them. However for any worker feeling trapped in a toxic work situation, it is helpful to understand the difference between constructive dismissal and quiet firing, to help them cut through the confusion of their circumstances and understand the options open to them. They may not be in a situation where they are being constructively dismissed, but their circumstances could mean that they are being quiet fired,” says Advaita Naidoo, Africa MD at Jack Hammer, Africa’s largest executive search firm.
Naidoo explains that quiet firing mostly comes into play when a company wants to go through a downsizing or restructure, where they typically face extensive, timely and costly bureaucratic hurdles, on top of the exit and severance packages they will be legally required to provide.
An example of quiet firing in this instance would be insisting that people return to the office full-time, or moving offices to a different location, which will often make it untenable or impractical for employees to comply. People then resign and it doesn’t cost the company anything.
“On a smaller scale, quiet firing is an indirect process where managers allow employees to have truly toxic or miserable experiences at work as a way to squeeze them out – without being in obvious, provable breach of company policy and labour laws. They may, for instance, withhold opportunities or support, leading to employees feeling undervalued and disengaged. This may result in employees voluntarily leaving a company, as opposed to being formally dismissed.
“Some employers may also use it to deal with underperforming employees in instances where managers do not know how to provide constructive feedback or are unwilling to invest in performance management. It’s even possible that managers may not realise they are engaging in quiet firing, most likely due to being ill-equipped to lead effectively. This manifests in poor communication and not managing stress well.”
Some ways in which quiet firing can be deployed include:
- Withholding raises and promotions to prompt employees to seek opportunities elsewhere.
- Isolating the employee from team activities, meetings and decision-making processes, which make them feel undervalued and disconnected.
- Assigning mundane or undesirable work which makes the daily grind almost unbearable.
- Increasing bureaucracy and micro-management, complicating simple processes which makes tasks frustrating and unnecessarily complex and onerous for no discernible benefit.
- Pushing back on promises by altering timelines, moving goalposts, and denying reasonable requests.
- Providing no feedback or support, which creates uncertainty and lack of career progression.
- Overwork or underwork, which alternately lead to boredom or burnout.
HOW TO DEAL WITH A SUSPECTED CASE OF QUIET FIRING
“Given high unemployment, not having a clearcut case of constructive dismissal on your hands but suspecting that you are on the wrong side of a quiet firing, can be tricky. When leaving a role isn’t an immediate option, it is crucial to firstly ensure you protect your mental wellbeing,” Naidoo says.
This can be achieved by establishing clear boundaries regarding responsibilities, available hours and support needed. At the same time, just as is the case with suspected constructive dismissal, concerns must be documented and incidents noted in detail, should formal action be required.
“Being proactive and insisting on open and frequent communication and support can help employees ensure a more transparent work environment where expectations are clarified, thereby reducing the likelihood of being quietly fired. And, though it may feel transactional, it can help to document your work, especially any accomplishments and positive feedback,” Naidoo says.
“Employers have a legal and ethical responsibility to create and maintain a safe working environment based on fair conditions. And although harder to prove, quiet firing can be seen as a breach of this duty. Provided their slate is clean, employees who believe they are victims of quiet firing may have grounds for legal action, especially if they can prove that the employer created a hostile working environment or unfair working conditions.”