As budgets tighten and hiring slows, many employers are searching for ways to reduce their headcount. Yet not every such manoeuvre is as straightforward as a round of layoffs.
A sneakier approach involves shuffling workers to roles with fewer responsibilities or limited chances for growth, rather than eliminating their jobs outright. Employers may frame the moves as ‘redeployment’ – perhaps a way to control costs or maintain business stability. Employees, however, often see things differently: a subtle signal that their utility has diminished and that they’re being pushed aside. This is ‘quiet cutting’.
The impact of quiet cutting
With its undermining of job roles cloaked in weasel words, quiet cutting naturally has a negative impact on employee wellbeing. But there are also reputational and talent retention risks at play. In a 2024 survey run by the job-search platform, Monster, 80% of employees said they lost trust or loyalty in their organisations once they suspected quiet cutting had occurred at their company. Of those respondents, 65% said quiet cutting contributed to creating a toxic environment at work and 64% said such efforts damaged relationships with leadership. A further 62% of employees reported higher stress and 58% admitted feeling less motivated to do their job.
So quiet cutting initiatives drain the energy of employees, sabotages relationships and leaves staff questioning whether they have a future in the organisation.
Why organisations turn to quiet cutting
Quiet cutting could seem the simplest and most cost-effective option for leaders under pressure. If staff leave of their own accord, organisations can avoid redundancy payouts. Employers might also be able to dodge the public scrutiny that tends to accompany major layoffs. By shifting people into different roles, companies can present themselves as stable even as they dramatically alter the shape of their teams behind the curtain.
Quiet cutting also buys time. Reassigning staff lets employers delay harder decisions about restructuring while still keeping work ticking along. But while some leaders might view these initiatives as a way to exert control over a period of change, the trade-off is growing uncertainty among employees.
What can HR do about quiet cutting?
HR functions can’t make restructuring painless but they can make it less damaging.
That starts with open communication. Employees need to know and understand why moves are occurring and how they fit into the bigger business picture. Even if changes are unpopular, transparency can help to reduce the shock.
Support is just as important. Training, mentoring and setting clear expectations in new roles can also soften the blow and help affected employees find their footing. Without that kind of follow-through, the risk of disengagement only grows.
Finally, HR should step back and look at the bigger picture. If quiet cutting is occurring frequently the undercurrent might be poor workforce planning, unaddressed skill gaps or leaders who are avoiding difficult redundancy decisions. Tackling root causes will do more for employee morale and trust than repeatedly moving people into roles that don’t fit.
As budgets tighten and hiring slows, many employers are searching for ways to reduce their headcount. Yet not every such manoeuvre is as straightforward as a round of layoffs.
A sneakier approach involves shuffling workers to roles with fewer responsibilities or limited chances for growth, rather than eliminating their jobs outright. Employers may frame the moves as 'redeployment' – perhaps a way to control costs or maintain business stability. Employees, however, often see things differently: a subtle signal that their utility has diminished and that they're being pushed aside. This is 'quiet cutting'.
