Is Quiet Quitting the Real Problem — or Is It Quiet Firing?

In the past few years, “quiet quitting” has been buzzing across workplaces and social media. It refers to employees doing only what their job description demands — no late-night emails, no extra tasks, no “going above and beyond.” While many leaders view this trend as a drop in motivation, others believe it’s a long-overdue pushback against hustle culture. But what if the real issue isn’t quiet quitting… but quiet firing?
Let’s unpack both — and why the latter might be the bigger problem.

What is Quiet Firing?​

Quiet firing occurs when management deliberately withholds raises, promotions, meaningful tasks, or career support to indirectly push an employee out — without actually firing them. Unlike quiet quitting, which is initiated by the employee, quiet firing is systemic and driven from the top down.
It’s not obvious. It’s not loud. But it’s very real. And dangerous.

The Power Imbalance​

Most corporate structures still operate on hierarchical power dynamics. Managers often get away with passive-aggressive disengagement — assigning no challenging work, excluding team members from important meetings, or suddenly “forgetting” annual reviews.
Employees on the receiving end often feel confused, undervalued, and directionless. Ironically, some of them start quiet quitting only after being quietly fired. So, which came first: the disinterest or the disregard?

The Cost to Organizations​

When talented individuals feel alienated, they either disengage or leave. That translates to:

• Lost productivity
• Increased turnover costs
• Negative employer branding on platforms like Glassdoor
• Lower morale in surviving teams

According to a Gallup report, actively disengaged employees cost the global economy $8.8 trillion annually. Quiet firing, though unspoken, contributes to this silent bleed.

The Fix Lies in Middle Management​

Often, middle managers are the key culprits — not always intentionally. Many are overworked, undertrained, and lack emotional intelligence. A study by McKinsey revealed that 75% of employees who voluntarily left jobs did so because of poor managers, not low pay.
Fixing this means:

• Providing regular feedback training
• Encouraging transparent communication
• Holding managers accountable for team engagement metrics
• Redefining performance reviews to be two-way conversations

A Little Controversy for Thought​

If an employee does only what they’re paid to do, are they quitting quietly… or are they just doing their job? And if a manager assigns only low-impact tasks to someone, are they providing growth opportunities, or slowly pushing them out?
Maybe it’s time to stop playing the blame game and redesign workplaces to be more humane, fair, and transparent.

Final Thoughts​

The modern workforce wants meaning, flexibility, and respect, not just a paycheck. Companies obsessing over quiet quitting should first reflect on their own culture. A high quit rate might be a sign of systemic quiet firing.
It’s not about who started it. It’s about who’s going to fix it.

 

[Priyani Gupta]

The phenomenon of “quiet quitting” has indeed sparked widespread debate, but as this article insightfully suggests, it may be time to shift our focus to an even more insidious workplace trend: “quiet firing.” While quiet quitting is often framed as a generational issue or a lack of work ethic, quiet firing is rarely discussed with the same intensity, even though its implications can be far more damaging both for individual employees and for organizational health.

At its core, quiet quitting is a form of boundary setting. Employees are choosing not to overextend themselves beyond their contractual obligations, often as a response to burnout, lack of recognition, or a perceived imbalance between effort and reward. In many cases, quiet quitting is less about slacking off and more about resisting the outdated “hustle culture” that glorifies overwork. But if quiet quitting is a symptom, then quiet firing may be a root cause—and one that is structurally embedded within management practices.

Quiet firing occurs when employers subtly push out employees by deprioritizing them—assigning them less meaningful tasks, withholding promotions, omitting them from key meetings, or stalling salary increases. It’s a passive-aggressive form of management that can devastate morale and erode trust. Unlike quiet quitting, which is an act of self-preservation, quiet firing is an act of neglect or even manipulation. It is often not documented, leaving employees with few options for recourse, and it can leave long-lasting psychological scars.

One of the most compelling points in the article is the exploration of power dynamics in traditional workplace hierarchies. Employees often don’t have the freedom to speak up against such treatment, especially in environments where managers hold disproportionate sway over professional advancement. When an employee begins to disengage, the instinct is to blame them for a lack of initiative or poor attitude. Rarely do organizations stop to ask: what came first—the disengagement or the exclusion?

This leads to a critical realization: quiet firing may be the silent precursor to quiet quitting. When an employee senses they are being sidelined, their natural response may be to withdraw. The issue is not always with employee motivation; it may lie in managerial indifference or poor leadership.

Organizations suffer tremendously from this quiet exodus. As the article highlights, disengaged employees cost the global economy trillions. Moreover, quiet firing contributes to higher turnover rates, reputational damage via platforms like Glassdoor, and the demoralization of teams who witness their peers being frozen out. It's a loss not just in human capital, but in institutional knowledge and morale.

The proposed solution—empowering and training middle management—could be a transformative shift. Managers are often promoted based on technical skills rather than leadership ability, which means they may lack the emotional intelligence required to manage diverse personalities, mediate conflicts, and foster a sense of belonging. Transparent performance reviews, regular feedback loops, and managerial accountability should be non-negotiables in any progressive workplace.

Finally, the article’s closing thought hits the heart of the matter: it’s not about who started the quiet quitting or firing cycle; it’s about who’s willing to stop it. Rather than policing employee behavior, organizations should examine the culture they cultivate. Are employees respected and valued? Is leadership invested in their growth? Is there a feedback mechanism that’s safe and effective?

In short, if quiet quitting reflects an individual’s silent rebellion against burnout, quiet firing is the organization’s passive abdication of responsibility. To build resilient, inclusive, and productive workplaces, we must address both—not with blame, but with systemic change, empathetic leadership, and a renewed commitment to dignity at work.