Quiet quitting, quiet managing, and quiet firing: the good, the bad, and the ugly

The term is new and it’s going viral thanks to TikTok. It is similar to a work-to-rule situation.  Unions sometimes adopt a work-to-rule strategy where the employee collective says, “We’re not going to go on strike, but we will just do the bare minimum of the job.” For example, when teachers work-to-rule it means there’s no extracurricular activities for students.

What’s different today with quiet quitting is that it’s not specific to unionized work environments. It is about an employee’s individual decision to essentially work-to-rule. So, the term is new and the fact that it’s being driven by the employees themselves is a little bit new.  Some would say it is like old wine in new bottles.

From an employee’s perspective, quiet quitting can be a good thing. It can mean a sense of agency or control over the amount and type of work that they can do.

It should lead to less burnout and provide people with more non-work time, which would be a good thing. It also is an indication of a person being able to set limits and boundaries when it comes to work and non-work—which is an important skill because it’s a reflection of being self-aware of one’s values and capabilities.

It comes with considerable risks about the perception of your performance from your manager or your peers, and your commitment to the organization.

While I’m glad that folks are contemplating their own limits, work boundaries, and not getting taken advantage of, I do think it can be quite difficult to know exactly what a job requirement is and what isn’t.

Sometimes the requirements are clear, but sometimes they’re not. And if you are not performing certain activities because you don’t think it’s a job requirement, and your employment contract suggests otherwise, then quietly quitting might be grounds for dismissal with cause. People should go into it with care and caution. In a perfect world, this would be a constructive two-way discussion between an employee and their employer.

In my view of how quiet quitting is currently being presented, it is being adopted when people feel that they have no voice, or they tried to have a discussion and haven’t been heard.

This hasn’t gone quite viral yet, but it’s certainly being talked about. Quiet managing is when leaders are making the decision to take a step back and not micro-manage their team. What form this takes will vary across different organizations and people.

It’s about a leader deciding to trust their people, believing that employees are going to do the best that they can, and getting out of the way to let them do their own work. It could mean fewer meetings. It could be fewer check-ins. It too has pros and cons.

Quiet managing can be a good thing provided there’s explanations to the employees about what’s happening and why things are changing. It conveys trust, recognizes the expertise or capabilities of employees, and provides motivation to do good independent work.

On the other hand, if the manager already has a hands-off approach and they decide to quietly manage, it could be a very bad thing. It shows lack of leadership and could be perceived as uncaring or distant. Whether the outcome is good or bad really depends on where a manager is starting from and what the employees needs are.

Quiet firing is not new, although the term is. It is essentially a new way of describing what is known as “constructive dismissal,” which is prohibited under the Canadian employment law.

Constructive dismissal occurs when a leader deliberately removes job responsibilities from the employee, through no fault of the employee. This makes it impossible for the employee to do their job, and potentially makes the work environment so toxic that the employee chooses to quit.

Constructive dismissal is essentially the employer not living up to their end of the employment contract. It is not acceptable and is grounds for wrongful termination. If an employee quits and is awarded a constructive dismissal claim in court, they’re entitled to all the benefits that they would have received had they been laid off, like notice and severance.

Managers must know this is not a legal practice in Canada. Also, there have been court cases where constructive dismissal has been awarded even without the employee quitting. So, they haven’t left their job, but the conditions have made it such. I guess in that sense, from the employer’s perspective, the quiet firing has backfired because the employee is still there.

It is important for employees to know that work requirements often shift over time. These shifts are not usually dramatic and are rarely rewritten into a formal contract. If you agree to perform this new work, it’s implied that you’ve accepted that change—and that it’s now part of the job.

However, if your work is changing and you’re not okay with it, you need to let your employer know. And this has to be done within a certain time limit. By not agreeing to the new terms of the employment contract, whether you quit or not, you may still have grounds for constructive dismissal.