Quiet firing and quiet quitting are two workplace trends that reflect the complex dynamics between employers and employees. Quiet firing occurs when employers sideline employees, reassigning them to low-impact roles or withdrawing support in hopes they will quit, thereby avoiding the complexities of formal firing processes such as litigation and performance management programs. This tactic often leads to significant harm, as seen in the case of Eliza, a marketing manager who was reassigned to a low-impact role and eventually quit, feeling humiliated and worthless. This practice can be viewed as constructive dismissal, where a hostile work environment forces an employee to leave.

Conversely, quiet quitting involves employees performing only the minimum required duties without going above and beyond. This approach is characterized by sticking strictly to the job description and refraining from extra tasks or responsibilities. Quiet quitting is often a response to burnout, dissatisfaction, or a lack of recognition and reward for additional efforts. Employees adopting this mindset aim to maintain a work-life balance and protect their well-being by setting firm boundaries between their professional and personal lives.

Both quiet firing and quiet quitting highlight significant issues within workplace environments. Quiet firing can erode employee morale and trust, leading to a toxic workplace culture, while quiet quitting can result in reduced productivity and engagement. These trends underscore the need for organizations to address underlying issues such as work overload, lack of support, and inadequate recognition. By fostering transparent communication and ethical management practices, organizations can create a more supportive and motivating work environment, ultimately benefiting employees and employers.

Managers engaging in quiet firing exhibit passive-aggressive behaviors, such as withdrawing support, stopping career advancement opportunities, and excluding employees from meetings. Common indicators include reassigning essential responsibilities, demotions, unreasonable performance targets, and changes in compensation or working conditions. These actions damage workplace culture, create a toxic environment, and can lead employees to resign. Over a quarter of employees in a survey began looking for new jobs in response to such signs.

To address quiet firing, employees should first accurately assess their situation and familiarize themselves with company policies and industry standards. Documenting achievements and instances of mistreatment can provide evidence of their value and any unfair treatment. Open communication with supervisors, seeking legal advice, and protecting mental health through professional support are crucial. Employees might consider quitting quietly to alleviate stress or negotiating departure terms if the company wants them out. Legal action may be possible if significant, unfair changes to working conditions can be proven.

The psychological impact on employees subjected to quiet firing is severe. They experience feelings of rejection, worthlessness, and exclusion, leading to significant mental health tolls. The daily frustrations and lack of development opportunities erode their confidence, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy of declining performance. Addressing this issue requires better training for managers, more HR support, and a willingness to confront workplace conflicts directly. However, the time and cost involved in educating managers on compelling employee motivation and conflict resolution mean that quiet firing may persist as a common, albeit flawed, practice in the workplace.

Why Corporations Quiet Fire Employees?

Corporations use quiet firing and quiet cutting for several reasons, primarily managing costs, minimizing legal risks, and avoiding confrontation. Here is a breakdown of the benefits these practices provide to employers and how they impact the bottom line:

Cost Savings

• Severance Avoidance: By encouraging employees to quit voluntarily, companies can avoid paying substantial severance packages, especially for long-term or senior employees.
• Litigation and Legal Costs: Directly firing employees can lead to costly and time-consuming wrongful termination lawsuits. Quiet firing reduces the risk of legal action by making it seem like the employee left on their own accord.

Performance Management

• Managing Underperformance: Employers may find pushing underperforming employees to quit easier than going through lengthy performance management processes requiring documentation, feedback, and multiple warnings.
• Workforce Reorganization: Quiet firing allows companies to subtly restructure and reassign roles without the disruption and negative publicity associated with mass layoffs.

Reducing Conflict

• Avoiding Confrontation: Managers often find it challenging to have difficult conversations about poor performance or termination. Quiet firing sidesteps these uncomfortable interactions, allowing managers to focus on other responsibilities.
• Maintaining Workplace Harmony: Directly firing employees can create an atmosphere of fear and tension among the remaining employees. Quiet firing is a less disruptive method.

Maintaining Flexibility

• Adapting to Market Conditions: In uncertain economic times, such as during a recession, quiet firing allows companies to quickly adjust their workforce size and composition without the formal processes required for layoffs.
• Talent Management: This tactic can help companies weed out employees who are not a good cultural fit or who do not align with the company’s strategic direction, allowing for more effective talent management.

Impact on the Bottom Line

• Reduced Turnover Costs: While there is an initial cost in terms of decreased morale and potential drops in productivity, over time, replacing underperforming employees with more effective ones can improve overall performance and profitability.
• Enhanced Efficiency: Quiet firing can streamline operations by indirectly encouraging the exit of employees who may not contribute effectively, thereby improving overall organizational efficiency.

Corporations use quiet firing and quiet cutting to save costs related to severance and litigation, manage underperformance, avoid confrontation, and maintain operational flexibility. While these practices can lead to short-term benefits for the company's bottom line by reducing immediate expenses and simplifying workforce management, they also risk long-term damage to employee morale, trust, and organizational culture if not managed transparently and ethically.

Research

Recent research on quiet firing and quiet cutting, where employers create hostile work environments to encourage voluntary resignations, reveals significant impacts on employee well-being and organizational culture. According to a survey by Zetwerk involving 1,015 business owners and employees across various industries, nearly 24% of employers admit to practicing quiet firing or quiet cutting, primarily for performance management, cost-saving, reorganization, and managing employee turnover (Weirman, 2023). These practices lead to feelings of humiliation, worthlessness, betrayal, and mistrust among employees, as exemplified by the case of reassigned marketing manager Eliza (Smith, 2022). Quiet firing and cutting often manifest through demotions, reassignment of responsibilities, and exclusion from critical communications, creating toxic work environments that erode trust and morale (Kayes, 2023). Employees experiencing these tactics frequently report increased stress, decreased job satisfaction, and a higher likelihood of seeking new employment (Horne, 2023). 

Despite employers' intentions, these approaches often backfire, with 56% of employees preferring straightforward termination and nearly 40% of those reassigned eventually leaving, with 30% leaving negative company reviews. While 70% of employers advocate for transparency and 54% consider quiet cutting unethical, the practice persists. Some reassigned employees benefit by acquiring new skills or receiving promotions, but these outcomes differ. Addressing these issues requires organizations to adopt transparent communication, fair performance management practices, and robust HR support to foster a supportive work culture and maintain employee morale and company reputation (Einarsen et al., 2023).

Being Setup to Fail and Quiet Firing

Quiet firing and being set up to fail are closely related, as both involve employers using subtle tactics to push employees out without formally firing them. Here is how they are connected:

Similar Tactics

• Reassignment and Demotion: Quiet firing often involves reassigning employees to roles with less responsibility or demoting them, making it difficult for them to demonstrate their value. Similarly, being set up to fail might include assigning tasks outside an employee’s expertise or beyond their capacity, leading to inevitable failure.
• Unreasonable Performance Targets: Employers may set unachievable performance targets in both scenarios. For quiet firing, this creates a pretext for negative evaluations, while setting someone up to fail directly leads to perceived underperformance.

Creating a Hostile Work Environment

• Lack of Support and Resources: Employers may need more support and resources, making it easier for employees to succeed. In quiet firing, this manifests as reduced feedback and fewer opportunities, whereas being set up to fail involves deliberately sabotaging an employee's ability to perform their job.
• Exclusion and Isolation: Quiet firing often involves excluding employees from meetings and critical communications, effectively sidelining them. Being set up to fail includes isolating employees from the information and collaboration needed to complete their tasks successfully.

Psychological Impact

• Erosion of Confidence and Morale: Both strategies erode the targeted employee's confidence and morale. Quiet firing makes employees feel undervalued and unimportant, while being set up to fail leads to repeated failure experiences, reinforcing a sense of incompetence.
• Increased Stress and Anxiety: In both scenarios, stress and anxiety from trying to meet impossible standards or navigate a hostile work environment are expected outcomes. This can lead to burnout and the eventual voluntary resignation of the employee, which is the employer's goal in quiet firing.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

• Constructive Dismissal: Both practices can be considered forms of constructive dismissal, where an employee is forced to resign due to an employer creating intolerable working conditions. If the employee can prove a pattern of unfair treatment and targeted actions, this can have legal implications.

Quiet firing and being set up to fail involve subtle, indirect tactics to push employees out of the organization without formal termination. These strategies create a hostile work environment by reassigning responsibilities, setting unachievable targets, withdrawing support, and isolating employees. The psychological impact on employees is significant, often leading to decreased confidence, increased stress, and eventual resignation. Both practices highlight the need for transparent and ethical management to foster a supportive workplace culture.

What Can You Do If You Are Being Quietly Fired? 

If you suspect you are being quietly fired, taking proactive steps can help you address the situation and protect your well-being. Here are ten tactical steps to consider:

1. Rationally Diagnose the Situation: Assess whether you are genuinely being quietly fired or if there are objective reasons for the changes in your work conditions. Ensure that the unfavorable changes specifically target you and not everyone equally.
2. Knowledge is Power: Familiarize yourself with your company's rules and regulations, promotion criteria, and industry standards. This will help you understand if your experiences are typical or you are being unfairly targeted.
3. Document the Good: Keep detailed records of your achievements and contributions. Tangible evidence of your value to the company can be crucial in defending your position.
4. Document the Bad: Collect evidence of mistreatment, such as emails, evaluation reports, and written feedback—document incidents where you felt unappreciated or excluded.
5. Communicate Openly and Proactively: Have an honest conversation with your supervisor about your concerns. Be specific about the issues and suggest tactical ways to improve the situation rather than simply complaining.
6. Seek Legal Help: Consult with an attorney or union representative to assess the severity of your situation and explore your options. Sometimes, just knowing legal consultation can deter further quiet firing tactics.
7. Protect Your Mental Health: The stress of being quietly fired can affect your mental health. Consider working with a therapist or counselor, and seek support from friends, family, and colleagues.
8. Quietly Quit: While determining the best course of action, consider disengaging from your work and doing only the minimum required tasks. This can reduce stress and give you time to plan your next steps.
9. Take Legal Action: If necessary, build a legal case by proving that the company has fundamentally and unfairly altered your working conditions, leading to actual, demonstrable damages.
10. Before Quitting, Negotiate: If you decide to leave, negotiate your departure terms. Discuss severance, positive recommendations, or other benefits. Use the leverage of your company wanting you out without firing you to your advantage.

By implementing these strategies, you can better navigate the challenges of quiet firing, protect your interests, and ensure that you are appreciated and valued, whether in your current role or your next one.

Legal Considerations

If you suspect you are being quietly fired, understanding your legal rights and knowing how to fight back can help you protect yourself. Here are your legal rights and steps you can take:

Legal Rights

1. Protection from Constructive Dismissal: If your employer creates a hostile work environment that forces you to resign, you may have a claim for constructive dismissal. This occurs when an employer’s actions significantly alter the terms of employment, making it intolerable for the employee to continue working.
2. Anti-Discrimination Laws: Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, or other protected characteristics. If quiet firing is part of discriminatory practices, you may have grounds for a discrimination claim.
3. Employment Contracts: If you have an employment contract, your employer must adhere to its terms. Any significant changes to your job responsibilities, compensation, or working conditions that violate the contract can be challenged.
4. Fair Performance Management: Employers must follow fair and reasonable performance management procedures. If you are being unfairly evaluated or set up to fail, this could be grounds for a grievance.

How to Fight Back Legally

1. Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all interactions, changes in responsibilities, performance evaluations, and any other relevant incidents. Collect emails, memos, and other written communications demonstrating the changes and their impact on your job.
2. Understand Company Policies: Familiarize yourself with your company's policies and procedures, especially those related to performance management, grievance procedures, and employment conditions. This knowledge will help you identify any breaches of policy.
3. Communicate Concerns: Raise your concerns with your supervisor or HR department formally and in writing. Outline the issues clearly and provide evidence of how these changes negatively impact your job and mental health.
4. Seek Legal Advice: Consult an employment lawyer to evaluate your situation and understand your legal options. An attorney can help you determine if you have a case for constructive dismissal, discrimination, or breach of contract.
5. File a Grievance: If internal communication does not resolve the issue, file a formal grievance with your employer. Follow your company's grievance procedures to ensure that your complaint is officially recognized and addressed.
6. Engage with a Union: If you are a union member, seek their support. Unions can provide legal advice, representation, and support in resolving employment disputes.
7. Report to Relevant Authorities: In cases of severe discrimination or breaches of employment law, report your employer to relevant authorities, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the U.S. or the appropriate labor board in your country.
8. Consider Legal Action: If all else fails, you may need to pursue legal action against your employer. Your lawyer can help you file a lawsuit for constructive dismissal, discrimination, breach of contract, or other relevant claims.

If you are being quietly fired, it is crucial to document everything, understand your legal rights, and seek professional advice. By following company procedures, communicating your concerns, and potentially taking legal action, you can protect yourself and challenge unfair treatment. Consulting with an employment lawyer will provide tailored advice and support based on your situation and local employment laws.

Dirty Tactics

Quiet firing and quiet cutting are often viewed as dirty and deceptive practices for several reasons, mainly revolving around their negative impact on employees and the ethical implications for organizations. Here is why these practices are considered unethical and harmful:

Lack of Transparency and Honesty

• Deceptive Tactics: Quiet firing involves indirect methods rather than straightforward communication to push employees out, such as reassigning tasks, cutting responsibilities, or creating unbearable work conditions. This deception undermines trust and honesty in the workplace.
• Avoiding Responsibility: Instead of addressing performance issues openly and providing employees with opportunities to improve, employers sidestep their responsibility to manage their workforce ethically.

Emotional and Psychological Harm

• Feelings of Worthlessness: Employees subjected to quiet firing often feel humiliated, undervalued, and betrayed. The lack of clear communication about their status and future in the company can lead to significant emotional and psychological distress.
• Increased Stress and Anxiety: The uncertainty and hostile environment created by quiet firing tactics can cause high levels of stress and anxiety, adversely affecting employees' mental health and overall well-being.

Erosion of Workplace Morale

• Toxic Work Environment: These practices create a toxic work culture where employees are unsure of their job security and feel unsupported. This can lead to decreased morale, lower productivity, and higher turnover rates.
• Mistrust Among Employees: When employees see their colleagues being quietly pushed out, it fosters an atmosphere of suspicion and fear. This mistrust can harm teamwork, collaboration, and overall workplace cohesion.

Ethical Concerns

• Manipulative Behavior: Quiet firing is inherently manipulative, involving strategic actions designed to force employees out without confrontation. This manipulation is ethically questionable and reflects poorly on the company's integrity.
• Violation of Employee Rights: Quiet firing can violate employees' rights to fair treatment and due process. Employees are entitled to transparent performance evaluations and the opportunity to improve if there are concerns about their performance.

Legal and Professional Risks

• Potential for Legal Action: Although quiet firing is designed to avoid legal repercussions, it can still lead to claims of constructive dismissal or wrongful termination if the employee can demonstrate a pattern of unfair treatment.
• Damage to Reputation: Companies known for quiet firing can suffer reputational damage. Negative reviews and word-of-mouth can deter potential talent and affect relationships with clients and partners.

Quiet firing and quiet cutting are considered dirty and deceptive practices because they rely on indirect, manipulative tactics to push employees out, causing emotional harm and eroding workplace morale. These practices lack transparency and honesty, violate ethical standards, and can lead to legal and reputational risks for companies. Employees subjected to these tactics are left feeling betrayed, undervalued, and stressed, highlighting the need for fair and transparent management practices.

Psychological Impacts

The "quiet firing" phenomenon aligns with several concepts in psychology research, particularly those related to workplace stress, job satisfaction, and organizational behavior. 

Job Insecurity and Stress: Research has shown that job insecurity, which quiet firing tactics can induce, leads to significant psychological stress. Sverke, Hellgren, and Näswall (2002) reviewed the impact of job insecurity on mental health, highlighting increased anxiety, depression, and overall stress levels among affected employees (Sverke et al., 2002). The uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding their job status create a stressful work environment, exacerbating feelings of helplessness and loss of control (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984).

Constructive Dismissal and Workplace Bullying: Quiet firing can be seen as a form of constructive dismissal and workplace bullying. Einarsen, Hoel, and Notelaers (2009) discuss how persistent adverse treatment by employers, such as exclusion and withdrawal of support, can be categorized as bullying, leading to severe psychological and health consequences for employees (Einarsen et al., 2009). Victims of workplace bullying often experience lower job satisfaction, higher levels of stress, and an increased likelihood of developing anxiety and depression (Leymann, 1996).

Psychological Contract Violation: The concept of psychological contract violation is also pertinent. When employees perceive that their employer has failed to fulfill implied promises or obligations, they feel betrayed, and experience decreased job satisfaction (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). This perceived breach of contract can lead to diminished trust, motivation, and commitment, contributing to the mental health issues seen in quietly fired employees (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).

Organizational Justice and Fairness: Perceptions of organizational justice are crucial for employee well-being. Greenberg (1990) emphasizes that when employees perceive unfair treatment, such as being quietly fired, it negatively impacts their psychological health and job performance (Greenberg 1990). Fairness in treatment and transparent communication is essential for maintaining a positive work environment and employee morale.

Coping Mechanisms and Support: Research by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) on stress and coping mechanisms indicates that employees facing quiet firing may struggle with inadequate coping resources. The lack of social support and organizational assistance exacerbates their stress levels, making it harder for them to manage the psychological toll (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Case Study: The Subtle Exit - Ian's Battle Against Quiet Firing

Background

Ian, a dedicated and experienced senior marketing manager, had been with a prominent events agency in London for over 20 years. In his early 50s, Ian was known for his deep industry knowledge, innovative strategies, and commitment to the company. However, after a recent change in leadership, Ian began to notice unsettling changes in his role and responsibilities.

Initial Signs

After returning from a brief vacation, Ian received an unexpected email from his new manager, Sarah, asking him to come in early the next day for a meeting. During this meeting, Sarah informed him of a company restructuring. His primary marketing responsibilities were reassigned to younger colleagues, and he was given a remote admin role with vague objectives and no clear path for advancement. This sudden change made Ian feel undervalued and sidelined.

Manifestation of Quiet Firing

Over the following months, Ian observed several changes that confirmed his suspicion of being quietly fired:

• Reassignment of Responsibilities: All his major projects and key clients were handed over to less experienced colleagues. His new tasks were mundane and lacked challenge.
• Lack of Communication: Sarah frequently canceled their one-on-one meetings, and critical team discussions took place without him. He was excluded from important email threads and decision-making processes.
• Unreasonable Expectations: Sarah set unrealistic performance targets that were impossible to meet given his new role’s limitations. She then used these missed targets to criticize his work.
• Workplace Isolation: Ian's requests for additional training or resources were ignored, and he was excluded from team-building activities and social events.

HR Decisions and Management Collusion

Behind the scenes, the HR department and senior management colluded to push Ian out. As a long-term employee, Ian was entitled to a substantial severance package. The company's strategy was to make his work life so unbearable that he would resign voluntarily, thus saving on severance costs. Emails and internal memos revealed that HR had instructed managers to reassign Ian’s tasks and isolate him to encourage his resignation.

Psychological Impact

The continuous undermining led to severe emotional and psychological stress for Ian. He felt rejected, worthless, and isolated from his colleagues. His confidence plummeted, and he began to question his professional abilities. The hostile work environment took a toll on his mental health, resulting in increased anxiety and stress.

Fighting Back

Realizing the company’s tactics, Ian decided to take action. He documented every instance of mistreatment, gathered evidence of his accomplishments, and contacted an employment lawyer. His lawyer helped him understand his rights and guided him through the process of filing a formal complaint against the company.

Legal Battle and Victory

With his lawyer’s support, Ian filed a lawsuit for constructive dismissal, arguing that the company had created intolerable working conditions to force him out. The evidence he had meticulously gathered proved crucial in building his case. Internal emails and memos were presented during the legal proceedings, revealing the HR department and management’s collusion.

Ian’s persistence paid off. The court ruled in his favor, and he was awarded the substantial severance package he was owed, along with additional compensation for the emotional distress he had endured. The company’s attempt to sidestep its financial obligations backfired, resulting in a significant payout and damage to its reputation.

Aftermath

After leaving the company, Ian found a new role in a different organization where his contributions were appreciated and valued. Reflecting on his experience, he realized the importance of standing up against unfair treatment and shared his story to raise awareness about quiet firing and encourage others to recognize the signs early.

Case Conclusion

Ian's case illustrates the detrimental effects of quiet firing on employees' well-being and morale and the potential legal repercussions for companies engaging in such practices. Employers may save costs in the short term but risk long-term damage to their organizational culture and reputation. Transparent communication, fair performance management, and ethical treatment of employees are crucial to fostering a supportive and productive work environment.

Summary

Recent research on quiet firing and quitting reflect the complex dynamics between employers and employees. Quiet firing involves sidelining employees, reassigning them to low-impact roles, or withdrawing support in hopes they will leave, thereby avoiding the complexities of formal firing processes such as litigation and performance management programs. This tactic often leads to significant harm, as seen in the case of Eliza, a marketing manager who was reassigned to a low-impact role and eventually quit, feeling humiliated and worthless. Quiet quitting, on the other hand, involves employees performing only the minimum required duties without going above and beyond, often in response to burnout, dissatisfaction, or lack of recognition.

Both quiet firing and quiet quitting highlight significant issues within workplace environments. Quiet firing can erode employee morale and trust, leading to a toxic workplace culture, while quiet quitting can result in reduced productivity and engagement. These trends underscore the need for organizations to address underlying issues such as work overload, lack of support, and inadequate recognition. By fostering transparent communication and ethical management practices, organizations can create a more supportive and motivating work environment, ultimately benefiting employees and employers.

Research indicates that nearly 24% of employers admit to practicing quiet firing or quiet cutting, primarily for performance management, cost-saving, reorganization, and managing employee turnover. These practices lead to feelings of humiliation, worthlessness, betrayal, and mistrust among employees. Quiet firing and cutting often manifest through demotions, reassignment of responsibilities, and exclusion from critical communications, creating toxic work environments that erode trust and morale. Employees experiencing these tactics frequently report increased stress, decreased job satisfaction, and a higher likelihood of seeking new employment. Despite employers' intentions, these approaches often backfire, with 56% of employees preferring straightforward termination and nearly 40% of those reassigned eventually leaving, with 30% leaving negative company reviews.

To address quiet firing, employees should accurately assess their situation, familiarize themselves with company policies, document achievements and instances of mistreatment, communicate openly with supervisors, seek legal advice, and protect their mental health. Legal action may be possible if significant, unfair changes to working conditions can be proven. Ultimately, addressing these issues requires better manager training, greater HR support, and a willingness to confront workplace conflicts directly, fostering a supportive workplace culture.

References

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure, and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24-44.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.

Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 438-448.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184.

Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226–256.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259.

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 242-264.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2023). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure, and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24-44.

Horne, S. (2023). Managing perceived poor performance: Ethical considerations and the impact on organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 557–573.

Kayes, C. (2023). Quiet firing and its implications for organizational behavior: A study on passive-aggressive management tactics. Journal of Management, 29(2), 234–256.

Smith, J. (2022). Constructive dismissal and quiet firing: Legal perspectives and case studies. International Employment Law Review, 19(4), 329–348.

Weirman, M. (2023). The prevalence and impact of quiet firing in the modern workplace. Zetwerk Research Reports, 5(1), 15–29.