I love how this is presented as a new phenomenon.
The question is whether it’s the employer or the employee?
This isn’t new, is it? Someone has finally just given it a name.
I haven’t read the article, but I am curious how this is new or “emerging”… there is nothing new about this.
ETA: Just saw Linda’s comment. So the article is just about the practice now having a moniker?
I agree. This just seems like the standard practice of cowardly managers (or perhaps, in some cases, a way to avoid a lawsuit alleging discrimination etc.).
I guess it would be OK to quiet-fire a quiet-quitting employee though……
I heard a story on the radio about quiet quitting and assumed the article was about that phenomenon. Halfway through I thought to myself that is not at all what they were talking about on the show. Relooked at the title, had a “if you would just read the words rather than assume what it says” moment with myself.
it’s new to the author. Probably a 20-something without a ton of work experience.
Given this is a trend that goes both ways. Yes, the logical choice is to work hard with the right attitude. I’ve also had my fair share of “screwed” with an employer or two because of “quiet firing.” I had one employer who was using admin privileges to literally sabotage my work. Since I’m in IT, I knew exact what and how it was being done, and sent some screenshots to HR with a detailed explanation before I left. I’m fortunate that was an isolated incident.
Nothing new. I’ve seen it happen several times over my 30 years in the workforce.
Had it happen to my department years ago. They wanted to move our work to corporate. Brought in the worst manager ever. Almost everyone quit. Funniest part was when I quit. As I was walking in to the manager’s office a coworker was walking out. She quit right before me. Great feeling.
The funnier part was corporate visited us for a deep-dive. They didn’t realize everything we did. They told management they didn’t have the skills to manage our work. Too late.
It truly was sad. It was a fantastic company when it was a CMU spinoff. Then it got bought. Unfortunately had that happen more than once.
I hate all these new terms. Quiet firing is nothing new. Employers have always tried to make life miserable for the employees they want to get rid off. Quiet quitting is something bad, a few years ago seeking a work-life balance (the same thing) was something good.
This is all part of young workers cluelessness. Most of these workers haven’t even been inside an office 5 days a weeks for much of their work career.
I was just relating a story yesterday about my daughter’s office. They are having a team picnic for everybody who works under a director (so around 100 people). My daughter only goes into the office once and week and many of these co-workers she has never seen in person (including the director himself). They have made this event as pain free as possible - during lunchtime on a work day with various transportation options for people. She is one of the only people in her direct working circle who is attending. She doesn’t understand how others don’t see this as an opportunity to make connections with their coworkers and bosses by meeting them in person.
You make a good point! I get that lots of employers don’t treat employees well or don’t pay them fairly. But, we also seem to act like work is something people are supposed to hate and that employers are the bad guy…
I get that not everyone likes their job, but I like my job and I enjoy going in and my employer treats me well. Then again, I do well at my job and I don’t expect to get rewarded just for showing up. I also feel that I have good work life balance.
Not new. 110 million years ago it was part of my ‘welcome to being a manager’ training at Westinghouse.
Must’ve been at least 35 years ago–the supervisor kept getting their office moved–until it was a closet.
It was at least 50 years ago my dad talked about somebody that absolutely no one wanted and couldn’t do the job. No other choice but to promote the person out of the office. Dilbert principle in action long before Dilbert existed. (vs. the Peter principle).
Not to be redundant and repetitive, but…
Not promoting, giving smaller raises, and not giving large responsibilities to under-performers is not exactly new.
30 years ago in an I banking training program our very first speaker welcomed the class and said “this is not a career where employees can pretend to work and or employers can pretend to pay. All that matters is your effort, contribution and results.” The message was pretty clear.
The firm was notorious for RIFing (reduction in force) the bottom 10% of employees annually based on perceived poor performance. It was rare that someone was surprised when exited. Feedback was in real time and constant. This dynamic largely remains but isn’t as overt.
This “disturbing trend” seems industry specific as Wall Street firms approach remains relatively consistent over the years. Personally I prefer the directness of what I experienced Vs this discreet approach through marginalization.
I’ve had this happen to me twice in my career. The first was way back in the Dark Ages of 1972. My manager, who was bipolar and an alcoholic, consistently tore me down – told me that the way I walked around the office and the way I dressed was stuffy and didn’t fit into the office. I pulled myself up and said to her, “I don’t think I can work here anymore.” She responded with, “Then quit!!” and I thought, ■■■ did I just do to myself?
I second time I was much more experienced and mature. I knew my manager was purposely making my life miserable and wanted me to quit, but I wouldn’t quit because I wanted a severance package. She finally did something that I reported to HR as harassment, and I got the package and a few other goodies.
It’s good to have experience.
And Yes, this is certainly not a new phenomenon.