Threat to company’s HR culture and honesty
Quiet firing is a growing, subtle trend that threatens company culture. It moves away from openness, fairness and performance-based reviews. Instead, senior management often interferes, which weakens the developing HR practices in the country. Often, senior leaders or the board look for ways to cut jobs to reduce costs, especially during an economic slowdown.
Key reasons for the rise in quiet firing include economic downturns, company downsizing, conflicts, leadership displeasure or bias, mergers and acquisitions, inaccurate internal reports, and the adoption of new technologies (especially for employees who struggle to adapt).
For instance, Rajeev Sharma (name changed), an engineer in the energy sector of a well-known company, was moved to the MD’s office. He was overwhelmed with diverse tasks that didn’t align with his technical background. He requested a transfer, but senior management ignored him, ultimately forcing him to resign.
This issue isn’t limited to private companies; it also happens in public offices. A few years ago, nine secretaries were transferred to the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers (OPMCM) and left without significant responsibilities. Being in a job with nothing to do can be frustrating for those used to having responsibilities. Similarly, Nepal Rastra Bank once transferred an Executive Director from the Research Department to the Public Debt Management Department, even though the government had already created a separate Public Debt Management Office. He reportedly told close friends, “It became tough for me to pass the time though I’m retiring in a next few months.”
In government offices, unclear lines of authority between leaders and civil servants often lead to nepotism, favouritism and backroom deals. This pushes honest and skilled professionals to the side.
A recent example involves Kul Man Ghising, the former Managing Director of Nepal Electricity Authority. The government asked him to explain his actions and the Board took away his power as managing director. Minister for Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation, Deepak Khadka, even asked Ghising to set up a separate office for the minister at Nepal Electricity Authority. The government hoped Ghising would resign because of this pressure, which would have avoided legal problems for them. However, Ghising did not resign and the government’s attempt to quietly fire him failed.
Quiet firing is a subtle way of pushing employees out, which harms fair and open workplace practices. This trend, where leaders (like senior management or board members) disregard HR rules, seriously endangers a company’s culture and honesty.
Downsizing of companies and threat to dispensable jobs
Many companies have slimmed down since the economic slump caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. To do this, most have quietly let people go instead of announcing mass layoffs. They mainly cut jobs they see as unnecessary.
This ‘quiet firing’ happens in different ways, like transferring employees, piling on too much work, or holding back promotions. For instance, a well-known company right here in Kathmandu transferred some employees to remote areas like Humla and Jumla, hoping they’d quit. Companies choose this subtle method to avoid legal problems and protect their image, as big layoffs can really hurt their reputation in the market.
M&A and shrinking opportunities
Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the financial world, like with banks and insurance companies, often lead to fewer job opportunities. When this happens, some companies offer Voluntary Retirement Schemes (VRS) to reduce staff. However, companies that don’t offer VRS, or for employees who choose to stay, companies often use ‘quiet firing’ tactics.
These methods commonly include transferring employees to inconvenient locations, assigning difficult tasks, delaying promotions and withholding recognition or excluding them from important work. The goal is to make unwanted employees leave on their own.
One financial institution employee, who wished to remain anonymous, shared her experience. After her company merged, she, a branch manager, felt her office started focusing on her weaknesses. Senior management even made a false accusation against her and demanded an explanation. She ultimately felt forced to resign due to the constant pressure. She noted that when a weaker company merges with a stronger one, employees from the weaker institution often face demotions, unrealistic goals and unfair treatment.
She took her case to the Labour and Employment Office but her complaint wasn’t taken seriously. She believes this was due to the influence of powerful institutions against individual employees. In these situations, the stronger institutions often aim to fill all the important roles, pushing aside staff from the weaker companies.
Eye on transfer of knowledge and skills
Some companies hire talented individuals not for long-term growth, but to gain specific knowledge or skills. Once their junior staff are trained or the company has absorbed the needed expertise, these talented employees are often treated poorly, sometimes even mistreated, to force them to leave.
Embracing technology or change in technology
Companies sometimes force out employees who struggle to adapt to new technology or aren’t performing efficiently. While most organisations train their staff on new systems, some companies lack proper learning and development programs. They often don’t believe older employees can learn new technology and perform well.
When factories or companies bring in new technology or integrate systems, those who can’t adapt often find themselves without responsibilities. For example, when Nepal Airlines switched entirely to Airbus planes, their pilots trained on Boeing aircraft had less and less work. This is because pilots usually specialise in either Airbus or Boeing and can’t easily switch between them. Although a pilot could technically transition, it requires a very demanding retraining process.
‘Yes-man’ culture and displeasure of leadership
Sometimes, inaccurate internal reports can unfairly target employees. It turns out that those who act professionally often face more challenges within an organisation compared to those who simply agree with everything, known as the ‘yes-man’ culture.
A ‘yes-man’ culture is a workplace environment where people don’t challenge the ideas of senior management or the board. This can stifle new ideas, lead to bad decisions, and prevent important analysis. In such a culture, employees might be afraid to question decisions or point out potential problems, even when they’re sure something is wrong.
Often, leaders wrongly see dissenting opinions or different ideas from employees as a personal challenge. Over time, those who offer different perspectives are pressured to resign due to the leadership’s disapproval, making things difficult for them. It’s important to remember that quiet firing isn’t always just about cutting costs. Personal egos, false internal reports, and conflicts within the company can also drive these decisions, often at the expense of fairness and professionalism.
Haphazard closure of organisations
Sometimes, organisations are closed down suddenly, which can also be a form of quiet firing. Recently in the USA, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), previously led by Elon Musk (who left after disagreements with President Donald Trump), informed USAID employees about their termination through late-night emails. This caused a global uproar.
USAID-funded projects worldwide, including those in Nepal, stopped abruptly because the Trump administration shut down the international aid agency suddenly, without warning or enough time for a proper shutdown. This sudden closure of USAID surprised its staff, project teams, partners and suppliers. This was not a responsible or ethical way to act, as it affected thousands of people globally.
Usually, those who are quietly fired don’t speak up publicly. They worry about embarrassment and how it might hurt their future job prospects. However, these practices are harming ethical standards and workplace culture.
In Nepal, the government has announced plans to merge or close many organisations that were created for temporary purposes but have stayed on for too long, such as development committees and boards. The government is doing this to avoid duplication and cut extra costs, including with state-owned businesses. It’s still not clear how the government will lay off staff, but the sudden, late-night email closure of USAID has set a worrying example.
What next?
Leaders should focus on results rather than trying to micromanage every detail, especially in HR. Too much meddling in HR matters can really damage employee morale and a company’s performance over time. A positive workplace culture and environment significantly impact how well employees do their jobs. Key factors include praise, inclusive leadership, opportunities for growth, flexible work hours, good communication and clear ways to handle complaints. HR teams must be empowered to improve performance, build strong teams, and adopt new best practices to keep employees engaged and motivated.
“Silent firing, the practice of quietly pushing employees out by limiting roles, growth, or responsibilities without formal communication, though subtle, is a sign of weak management,” stated Sunil Ballav Pant, CEO of NLG Insurance. He added, “In Nepal’s insurance industry, where people are central to trust and growth, quietly disengaging employees without formal communication is both ethically questionable and strategically unsound. In the short term, it creates an environment of fear and uncertainty. Over the long run, it weakens employee trust, reduces organisational loyalty, and hampers productivity.” Experts agree that managing human resources is complex and requires careful, consistent and professional judgement. If the HR department’s role is weakened or taken over, employees feel sidelined. This ultimately erodes trust, job happiness, commitment to the company, and overall productivity.
‘Silent firing ultimately creates a toxic environment and causes trauma to everyone’
Bhuban Raj Joshi, Sr. HR Professional
‘Silent firing’ is one of the forms of termination of employment that was not discussed upfront and it is painful for all the parties concerned. Unfortunately, this behaviour is becoming more common in workplaces, sometimes for reasons and other times because of management’s immature people approach. In any case, it’s never a pleasant experience, sometimes due to a bad hire and other times to the lack of professionalism on the part of the organisation or supervisor.
Silent firing is poisonous and negatively impacts both parties’ mental health. The implicit negativity causes difficult transitions and ruins relationships. However, in order to avoid the unfavourable consequences of a traditional termination, organisations frequently adopt silent firing. Both employers and employees often contribute to this challenging circumstance.
Silent firing ultimately creates a toxic environment and causes trauma to everyone. Uncertainty affects everyone in the office, not just those directly involved, and leads to general stress.
Silent firing severely threatens the institutionalisation of HR culture by:
Affects Employee Engagement: Negativity and fearful atmosphere around leads to disengaged workforce which is challenging to HR.
Undermines HR’s Role: It goes around established HR systems for performance management, feedback and termination, making HR appear futile or irrelevant.
Loss of Trust: When terminations take place in this manner, employees come to distrust HR as an impartial mediator.
Establishes Precedent: It normalises the informal approach of terminating employees, which makes it more difficult for HR to put in place clear, standardised processes.
Impedes Policy Development: HR finds it difficult to create efficient policies in the absence of an official record of problems or explicit grounds for termination.
Legal Risk: The business may face legal challenges for unfair termination. Any drastic measures used during the quiet firing process result in psychological distress and legal consequences.
Damage to Employer Brand: A culture of quiet firing discourages potential employees because they believe there is a lack of openness, which has an adverse effect on HR’s attempts to hire and retain talent.
‘Silent firing is a common but unspoken practice in Nepal’
Raj Bahadur Shah, Managing Director, Jawalakhel Group of Industries
Nepal’s current business environment is very unpredictable, making long-term planning extremely difficult. Because of this, many companies are reducing their size as they face less growth and financial pressure.
Every organisation is different but most are now embracing change, often led by younger teams. While this brings new energy, it can be tough for older employees who need to work harder to adjust both their habits and their way of thinking. Today, it’s common for a 50-year-old to learn from a 25-year-old.
Unfortunately, in Nepal, it’s increasingly hard to truly know a candidate’s character and skills just from a resume or interview. On top of this, HR departments are often underfunded and not valued enough, leading to poor strategies for hiring and keeping employees.
Letting an employee go should actually be seen as a company failure. Hiring, onboarding and developing staff are core responsibilities, especially for direct supervisors, who should act as mentors, not just managers. In my 25 years of experience, I’ve noticed a big gap in the skills of mid-level managers, often forcing department heads to do their work. This inefficiency slows down the organisation’s growth.
Silent firing is a common but unspoken practice in Nepal. While it might seem like it benefits both sides, it mainly exists because of old and strict labour laws. Employees who try to fight their termination rarely win. In Nepal’s small professional world, being seen as a troublemaker or having short job stays (less than 3–5 years) can harm your career, no matter how qualified you are.
In the short term, letting employees go often lowers morale, creates confusion, and builds mistrust. Over time, the damage gets worse: it harms the company’s culture, increases the number of people leaving, and hurts its reputation. Still, not changing with the times can destroy a company. Leaders must make difficult choices, not because it’s easy, but because they are responsible for the company’s long-term survival.
‘Silent firing slowly creates a workplace filled with fear, stress and unhappiness’
Ashok Sherchan, CEO, Prabhu Bank Limited
I see ‘silent firing’, where employers subtly push employees to quit by ignoring them, leaving them out, or stopping their career growth, as a serious problem. It hurts everyone’s morale and the company’s health in the long run. In Nepal, labour laws say that companies must follow clear rules before firing someone. But because firing an employee can lead to legal issues, some employers try to avoid this by using silent firing. This way, they don’t have to give official reasons or deal with legal problems.
While silent firing might seem easy in the short term, it slowly creates a workplace filled with fear, stress, and unhappiness. Over time, this breaks down trust in leaders, makes more staff leave, and harms the company’s reputation. To avoid these issues, companies should focus on clear communication, give employees chances to improve, and strictly follow legal procedures. Creating a culture of fairness and respect is key to building a positive, productive and lasting workplace.
‘Even when changes are needed, they should be handled openly and fairly’
Sunil Ballav Pant, CEO, NLG Insurance
Silent firing is a subtle way to push employees out by limiting their roles, growth or responsibilities without any official talk. This approach, however quiet, actually signals weak management. In Nepal’s insurance industry, where trust and growth depend on people, quietly pushing employees away without clear communication is both ethically wrong and a bad business move.
In the short term, this practice creates an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. Over time, it damages employee trust, lowers loyalty to the company, and hurts productivity. Employees can sense when they’re being sidelined and this quiet disengagement often spreads through teams, cutting down on motivation and trust. In a service industry like insurance, where every staff member affects the client’s experience, such disengagement directly impacts how well the business performs.
Instead, leaders should encourage a culture of ongoing feedback, clear expectations and mutual respect. Even when changes are needed, they should be handled openly and fairly. In Nepal’s close-knit professional world, how companies treat their employees has a ripple effect far beyond the office walls. Ethical leadership and clear communication aren’t just nice ideas, they are essential for business success.
‘Being quietly pushed out can leave deep scars’
Bidhata Shrestha, Joint-Managing Director, Radisson Hotel Kathmandu
While some organisations might use silent firing, I do not. Although it might seem to avoid direct conflict or legal risks associated with formal firing and severance pay, I see such practices as a management mistake. It’s a quiet way of taking away someone’s dignity, treating people as if they are disposable and not worth honesty. That’s not just poor leadership; it harms trust in the long run. For the employee, silent firing can cause immediate confusion and anxiety. They might not understand what’s happening or why, leading to self-doubt, self-blame, and stress. Another effect is a lack of motivation. Feeling unwanted or sidelined can quickly lower morale, causing them to become disengaged. For the employer, it simply helps them avoid uncomfortable conversations, creating only a superficial sense of peace.
In the long run, employees suffer a lasting loss of confidence. Being quietly pushed out can leave deep scars. Their growth can stall because they don’t know what they need to change. Eventually, it becomes harder for them to trust leadership and believe in their own growth within an organisation.
For the organisation, adopting silent firing creates a toxic culture. There’s internal mistrust, which stops people from doing their best work. The credibility of leadership will always be questioned, leading to more employees leaving. With proper communication and support, employees might have been able to improve, and that’s a wasted investment.
‘HR must take a proactive role in addressing the issue of silent firing’
Upasana Rai, HR Specialist, GIZ
‘Silent firing’ undermines the core HR values of fairness, transparency and equity. This passive form of disengagement erodes psychological safety, diminishes trust in HR, and creates a toxic work environment. To uphold and institutionalise a healthy organisational culture, HR must proactively identify and mitigate such practices.
Some proactive strategies to counter silent firing would be to implement clear performance management system, develop safe reporting mechanisms, invest in managerial training (ethical leadership, emotional intelligence, etc.), align managerial performance with team outcomes (such as team engagement, retention, etc.), conduct comprehensive employee feedback (use tools like stay and exit interviews, pulse survey, etc.) and analyse trends in promotions, performance rating, lateral moves to identify patterns of marginalisation.
When instances of silent firing are identified, HR must take a proactive role in investigating and addressing the issue. This involves gathering evidence, engaging in open dialogues with involved parties, and implementing corrective actions. Supporting the affected employee throughout the process is crucial to restoring trust and ensuring a fair resolution.
For HR to effectively serve as the guardian of organisational culture and protector of employee rights, it must be positioned as a strategic partner within the management structure. This requires strong governance, management support, and a commitment to upholding ethical standards. By fostering a culture of transparency and accountability, HR can mitigate the risks associated with silent firing and promote a healthy, engaged workforce.
‘Employees experience emotional and mental breakdown from such irrational practices’
Binita Jaiswal, Head of Human Resources and Administration, Oxfam
I believe ‘silent firing’ is one of the worst things leaders or management can do. It completely disrupts a supportive environment for employees, making them feel so pressured that they’re forced to quit their jobs.
Silent firing includes following but not limited to;
1. Making the employee feel unheard.
2. Reducing or completely removing the meaningful job responsibilities and duties that the concerned employee is assigned or hired for and asking them to perform a job that they are not meant for or in other words, we can say assigning them with demeaning duties/tasks. Silent firing can involve creating a hostile team environment that isolates an employee. For instance, this happens when a company overly values one team member while ignoring another responsible person on the same team. This can also occur by not following proper communication channels within a department or team.
3. An unsupportive environment for a colleague can involve withholding recognition, creating barriers for their growth, transferring them to different departments despite their expertise and interests, or even disrespecting and humiliating them publicly.
In today’s professional world, where adapting to the Gen Z workforce is a major topic, silent firing should have no place in any organisation’s culture. Instead, companies should focus on creating an open, clear, transparent and safe space for discussion, learning and development. Investing in Performance Improvement Plans and, most importantly, improving leadership behaviour and attitude is crucial. While some organisations might still practice silent firing, this approach carries significant risks. Employees subjected to it are highly likely to experience emotional and mental breakdowns due to the unpleasant and psychologically unsafe environment. Furthermore, organisations that use silent firing face a high probability of severe and often irreversible damage to their brand reputation.
