The hidden risks of ‘quiet firing’  

As economic pressures force companies to make tough staffing decisions, an increasing number are turning to quiet firing — a subtler cousin of formal layoffs — to trim their workforce, especially through return-to-office mandates.

Although this strategy may appear to be a discreet way to manage headcount, it is becoming alarmingly clear that using remote work preferences as a proxy for performance is a dangerous miscalculation. New research and surveys suggest that when remote or hybrid employees are targeted for exit, companies may inadvertently be pushing out their most skilled, experienced and irreplaceable talent.

In 2025, 53 percent of U.S. businesses report using quiet-firing tactics, such as delaying raises, mandating additional office days and cutting benefits, according to a ResumeTemplates survey of more than 1,100 business leaders. For many, these measures serve as a silent nudge for employees — particularly those resistant to return-to-office mandates — to leave voluntarily. It's a move designed to reduce severance costs and avoid the negative optics of formal layoffs. 

The rationale may seem simple: If employees resist return-to-office policies, they’re less committed. But this thinking collapses under scrutiny. A major study led by Mark Ma at the University of Pittsburgh analyzed LinkedIn data from millions of professionals across large S&P 500 tech and financial firms. The results reveal that employees most likely to leave under office mandates are not low performers or disengaged slackers. They’re top-tier talent. 

Turnover spiked by 14 percent after office mandates were introduced, with women leaving at 20 percent higher rates than before. Senior or highly skilled employees, as well as top managers, depart at nearly the same rate: 18 to 19 percent. These are the people companies can least afford to lose — the mentors, the innovators, the institutional memory keepers. They're heading for the exits not because they’re underperforming, but because they expect flexibility.

Executives often equate a desire to work remotely with a lack of dedication. But the data tell a different story. Workers who prefer remote or hybrid arrangements are not shirking responsibility but balancing it. Especially for women, who traditionally bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilities, remote work isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity. 

Quiet-firing tactics, such as increased in-office demands or benefit cuts, disproportionately target this group. But when these employees leave, it’s not the laggards who go. It’s the professionals with options — the ones most likely to be recruited by companies offering more flexible terms.

The idea that employees will quit when conditions deteriorate also ignores another uncomfortable truth: Many stay, and not because they’re disengaged but because the job market is uncertain. They endure toxic environments, rising workloads and micromanagement out of financial necessity. According to the ResumeTemplates survey, 77 percent of companies say quiet-firing sometimes fails simply because workers hang on despite the pressure. This creates a grim dynamic: Companies keep those who are stuck, while the best performers self-select out.

The long-term consequences of these misguided layoffs are beginning to show. Firms that implement strict in-office policies face hiring delays averaging 12 days longer per role and see a 17 percent drop in hiring rates. At a time when innovation and agility are critical to business resilience, losing top talent to more flexible competitors is not just inconvenient — it’s existential. 

When firms label remote-preference as a liability, they not only alienate their current workforce, they diminish their appeal to prospective employees. More than 91 percent of remote-capable workers now expect some form of flexibility, and nearly two-thirds prioritize it when considering new roles. Companies that quietly push out employees based on their workplace preferences are not just pruning headcount — they’re hacking away at their future talent pipeline. 

And the irony is stark: the very employees targeted by return-to-office-enforced layoffs or quiet firing are often those with the skills to lead a company through transformation. In pressing them out, organizations dilute their intellectual capital and weaken succession plans. In short, they fire the people most capable of saving the company from the very decline they fear. 

There’s no denying that economic constraints, from tariff-induced costs to investor pressure, are real. But targeting remote employees for elimination is a blunt and deeply flawed tool for workforce management. It fails to consider the nuanced reasons employees prefer flexibility. It overlooks the rising tide of evidence showing that hybrid models foster both retention and productivity.

Companies looking to make smart cuts must shift the lens from where people work to how they contribute. Performance assessments need to be grounded in measurable outcomes, not presence in a building. It’s entirely possible — and increasingly necessary — to evaluate productivity without conflating it with physical attendance. 

Formal layoffs, while painful, offer a more transparent and equitable approach than quiet firing. They allow companies to retain trust and morale, and ensure decisions are made based on strategy, not bias. In a market where talent is both scarce and mobile, the cost of firing the wrong people is not just internal disruption — it’s a competitive disadvantage.  

Remote preference isn’t a performance red flag. But to misinterpret it as one might instead be a red flag of managerial incompetence. 

Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller “Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.”