Quiet cutting could be hurting employers more than they know

Over the last few years, several workplace practices have been anointed with the term “quiet”. First, there was quiet quitting, a phrase given to the process of employees mentally checking out at work, decreasing their productivity and effectively quitting the hardest elements of their job. 

Another phrase that’s gaining popularity is quiet cutting. This time, it’s employers who are quietly going about their business reassigning employees to new roles with the goal of the employee quitting the job because they no longer enjoy it. But why are employers doing this, and is it an effective solution to generating employee turnover?

What is quiet cutting?

• Alongside quiet quitting, quiet cutting sits in a suite of workplace trends that have been adorned with the “quiet” mantle; others include quiet hiring and firing
• Quiet cutting is the process of reassigning employees to new roles, or handing employees new tasks, in the hope they will quit on their own terms rather than the employer terminating their contract and being forced to cover redundancy pay or similar
• Essentially, the quiet aspect refers to the fact that no one has explicitly verbalised their reasoning for something or they’re doing it in a subtle fashion

New name, old habit

Quiet cutting certainly isn’t a new phenomenon, but it is a new term. Managers and employers have long reassigned staff into roles they won’t enjoy to push them out the door. The goal is to avoid paying severance/redundancy pay or other entitlements potentially attached to a contract termination. 

It’s a negative tactic used by unscrupulous employers and new research shows that it’s not an uncommon practice with almost one in four employers doing so. 

“It’s striking to see the impact on both employers and employees, shedding light on the complexities of this controversial practice,” Madeline Weirman, Creative Strategist at Zetwerk, told Forbes.

“It’s also encouraging to note that approximately 70% of employers advocate for transparency, and 54% consider ‘quiet cutting’ as unethical. Furthermore, more than half of reassigned employees surveyed acquired new skills, 15% were promoted to higher positions and nearly one in 10 even received a raise, suggesting that quiet cutting often doesn’t achieve the employers’ intended results.”

Employers listed performance management (73% of survey respondents), cost-savings (42%) and reorganisation (33%) as their top three reasons for quiet cutting. Most employees would be shifted to less strategic or visible roles, jobs with non-traditional work hours or tedious and trying call centre roles. Concerns with performance management mean, often saw entry-level employees bearing the brunt of quiet cutting with companies rarely reassigning their managers or senior-level staff. 

Quiet cutting isn’t a clean process

• 40% of quietly cut employees did eventually leave their company, while a further 28% said they planned to leave
• On average, Zetwerk found that employers still had to fire 34% of employees they had reassigned
• Just one in four employers believe it’s more effective than hiring new employees with many believing it could also negatively impact their business and future recruitment
• One in three employees ultimately left a negative company review based on their treatment while 62% of respondents who have seen quiet cutting in the workplace said it caused them to think negatively of their employer

On a positive note, less than one in three surveyed employers view quiet cutting as a sustainable practice. Those who don’t participate said they view transparent communication, regular performance reviews, upskilling and training as far more beneficial methods to improve their workforce.

That’s good news as quiet cutting can be a messy process at times. As Zetwerk reported, employees are not oblivious to the practice. One-third have experienced quiet cutting while half of respondents knew someone who had been cut quietly. This led to feelings of betrayal and an increased motivation to leave the company even if they were not the staff member directly involved.

Ms Weirman said transparent conversations about employment and performance are always best.

“When termination is necessary, being honest and straightforward with employees can mitigate negative impacts on morale and company reputation. Additionally, investing in training and regular performance reviews can offer support to struggling workers, ultimately benefiting both the company and its employees in the long run,” she said.

Ultimately, the majority of employees said they would prefer to be fired and not cut quietly. This is also the best practice in the long run as any financial concerns over redundancy pay will be less concerning than lasting negative impacts on workplace morale.