Quiet Cutting
The cheap exit that damages trust
You weren’t fired. Your job was.
It’s the line no one wants to hear, yet it’s become worryingly common in the post-pandemic workplace. Quiet cutting is on the rise, a tactic where employers reassign employees to different roles instead of formally letting them go. The roles are often less prestigious, less aligned with the person’s skills, and sometimes come with reduced pay. The message is unspoken but clear: LEAVE!
On paper, it looks like a smart cost-cutting move. In reality, it’s a trust killer. And one that managers don’t need to rely on, because weirdly….what goes around, comes around.
What is Quiet Cutting?
Quiet cutting is when a company eliminates a role but moves the employee into a different one, often ill-fitting or undesirable, rather than formally laying them off. It became a headline term in 2023 as post-COVID restructurings gained pace, and alarmingly is more often taught behind closed doors or whispered by management consultants.
It shows up as, “Your job’s gone, but, don’t worry, we’ve reassigned you, starting Monday.” These new roles are typically lower-status, more demanding, or carry relocation and pay cuts. Employees are expected to get the hint.
The term took hold partly due to its link with “quiet quitting” and was fuelled by major brands restructuring publicly. Analysts noted a spike in talk of reassignments on earnings calls, signalling the trend’s scale.
Why companies think it’s cheaper
Quiet cutting appeals because it appears to save money:
No or reduced severance packages, especially where legal requirements are minimal
Lower unemployment insurance claims, which can reduce payroll tax costs
Quiet, low-profile reductions in force that avoid triggering formal layoff protocols or bad press
Fewer HR and legal resources spent on performance documentation or redundancies
But let's be real. Your thoughts can be heard when you are reading this, and you're right. Besides it being a 'cheaper' option, it's evidence of the ongoing leadership crisis we’re in. In plain terms:
"We just don't want to have a hard confrontation and be the bad guy."
It can feel like a neat way to “manage out” underperformers or reallocate skills without the paperwork, but that avoidance only delays the real work of leading.
But that convenience masks real risks.
The ethical dilemma
Quiet cutting bypasses informed consent. It uses ambiguity to pressure people out. That’s a breach of psychological safety and fairness.
The power imbalance is stark. “Take it or leave” reassignment offers exploit a company’s structural advantage. Even if legal, the move can feel coercive. And employees not directly affected are watching. They take note.
HR experts warn it can backfire, leading to disengagement, internal mistrust, and costly attrition. The costs are hidden but significant. Especially with review sites like Glassdoor or Indeed, where even anonymised feedback travels fast. Yes, these platforms still lean in favour of companies (who often pay for premium features), but a tipping point is near. As employees share more raw, public insight, the cracks in opaque HR practices become harder to cover.
The business case against it
Morale nosedives. People feel expendable, sidelined, and anxious. That undermines motivation, productivity, and psychological safety. When employees feel their job could vanish overnight, trust and discretionary effort disappear.
Employer brand suffers. Word travels fast, especially on platforms like Glassdoor, LinkedIn, and internal chat. Quiet cutting signals that loyalty isn’t rewarded, making it harder to attract and retain top talent who value transparency and integrity.
Execution fumbles. You risk cutting institutional knowledge and core skills while scrambling to fill urgent gaps. Inconsistencies emerge: roles are quietly reshuffled, but job boards still show active listings. That creates confusion and undermines credibility.
In short, quiet cutting may shrink severance costs in the short term, but it creates long-term liabilities: damaged culture, leadership credibility gaps, and unplanned attrition. It's a false economy.
A better path: role clarity, timely feedback, fair exits
You don’t need to “quiet cut” to solve performance problems. Here’s what to do instead:
1. Set role clarity from day one
Write a one-page role charter with outcomes, KPIs, stakeholders and what “good” looks like. Revisit it after any reorg.
In high power-distance or high uncertainty-avoidance cultures, make expectations even more explicit. People shouldn’t have to guess what success means.
2. Give feedback with a clock on it
Use monthly check-ins based on the role charter. Be specific. Bring evidence.
If gaps continue, move to a formal Performance Improvement Plan with milestones, support and clear timelines.
3. Make reassignment opt-in
Internal mobility can be a strength, when it matches skills and ambition. Let people apply, don’t force moves. Treat it like a hire, not a demotion.
4. Communicate like adults
If a role is redundant, say so. Explain the business context. Offer severance, outplacement, or real internal options. Transparency builds trust and reduces legal risk.
5. Close the loop
After the fact, tell the team what changed, how work is covered and what won’t get done. Avoid the silence that fuels fear.
Final word.
Hire imperfectly if you must. But exit perfectly. Because every departure sends a signal, and it’s your job to make sure it’s the right one.
We can help.
If you’re reading this and thinking, “It’s not in my nature to have these talks,” don’t worry. The internet might shout, “Then you’re not a real manager,” but that’s wrong. It may just mean you’re a compassionate human being. In that case, the best move is to hire fewer full-time employees and work with third parties — like us — who can help you lead with clarity and care.
FAQ
-
Quiet cutting is when a company eliminates a role and reassigns the person to a different job, often a poor fit, to encourage resignation rather than running a formal exit or redundancy.
-
Legality varies by jurisdiction and contract. Ethics are the bigger issue. Opaque reassignments damage psychological safety and trust. Transparent communication and documented processes are safer and fairer.
-
Performance management is open and structured. It sets clear expectations, provides coaching and timelines, and makes a clean decision if improvement does not happen. Quiet cutting relies on opacity and misalignment to trigger voluntary exit.
-
Write a one-page role charter, run regular evidence-based check-ins, offer support, and if gaps persist use a time-bound improvement plan. If performance does not improve, end employment respectfully and explain the decision to the team.
