Image Credit: Albert Tercero
To avoid the financial, psychological, and legal costs associated with forcing people out, some companies are intentionally creating an ambivalent or openly hostile work environment to promote attrition. On an individual level, this is hardly a new idea as managers have long used similar tactics to push out underperformers without paying them severance or risking retaliation. But more recently, dominating companies, such as Meta and Tesla, seem to be using quiet firing as a workforce reduction strategy on a wider scale. Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Meta, told employees in July 2022 to buckle up for an “intense period” of 18-24 months—if not longer—adding that “I think some of you might just say that this place isn’t for you. And that self-selection is okay with me.” Managers were asked to start identifying weak performers, and Meta fired 60 contractors “at random” using an algorithm. Later that year, Meta disbanded its Responsible Innovation team, which comprised of engineers, ethicists, and academics who tried to keep the downsides of its products in check.
Quiet firing signals, at its core, a lack of even the most rudimentary managerial skills. In many cases, quiet firing is a byproduct of poor hiring and/or training. It’s a hail-Mary to score the winning touchdown after an abysmal first 3 quarters, but unless the systemic issues that caused this problem in the first place are addressed, you might find that it’s the only play you’ve got. The problems can be broad and far reaching but, at the very least, it should signal to upper management that your people leaders are not doing their due diligence when hiring and not providing adequate training and support to their employees.
We’ve heard quiet firing being referred to as a signal of an inadequate workforce. We would argue that it’s a signal of a management epidemic. One that can impact, not only the culture of the organization, but it’s reputation on the street. According to one study, a majority of workers who quit a job in 2021 said no opportunities for advancement (63%) and feeling disrespected at work (57%) were reasons why they quit. At least a third said each of these were major reasons why they left.
People leaders need to roll up their sleeves and have the difficult conversations to ensure they’re hiring the right person for the role and, if an employee stumbles, provide them with the support and coaching they need to learn, grow, and improve. Management is a full-time job and in today’s fast paced, evolving business landscape, it is becoming more and more complex. While it would be easy to blame employees and people leaders for the epidemic we’re facing, in the end it comes down to a lack of resources. Are senior leaders in your organization recognizing the difficulty managers face and affording the time, resources and support they need to be an effective leader and do their day job. I’ll answer this for you, in most cases, the answer is no.
If your organization is filled with managers and not leaders, I’m not going to lie to you, you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you, from reviewing your hiring practices, gaining a broader understanding of the employee and leader experience at your organization, reassessing or instituting a robust managerial training program and more. This may sound like it’s a lot of work, and it is. Let’s face it, your employees and leaders are the most expensive and most valuable asset a company has. Initiatives aimed at improving their effectiveness and experience should be expensive and incur a significant amount of resources. Otherwise, it probably won’t work. You need to put into this program what you want to get out of it, and that should be increased retention, productivity, experience and, most importantly, a reduction in reject turnover which is actually the most expensive risk an organization faces.
If you are embarking on a similar strategy, contact us today. We can help!