05 Dec Does Quiet Firing Really Happen in Global Mobility? Absolutely—and Its Impact Is Even More Severe

Some people assume quiet firing is a local workplace issue—something that happens inside a single office, a single team, or a single country. But anyone who has worked in global mobility long enough knows that the dynamics of international assignments can actually make quiet firing more common, not less. And when it does happen, the consequences are far more damaging than anything seen in a domestic setting.

The reality is that mobile employees occupy an unusually vulnerable position. They relocate across borders, leave their familiar support networks behind, and depend heavily on a host manager—often someone they’ve never met—for integration, stability, and career momentum. 

That dependence alone creates the perfect conditions for quiet firing to occur. When a host manager withdraws engagement, stops offering guidance, or gradually reduces meaningful responsibilities, the assignee has very few avenues to seek help. The social and cultural buffers that might exist in a local placement simply aren’t there.

A major contributor is the structural disconnect built into many mobility programs. Headquarters might champion an employee for an overseas role, but the host manager, who inherits the assignee, may not fully agree with the choice or the role’s importance. Sometimes the manager didn’t request the assignment in the first place, or they feel pressured to accommodate a talent move designed by HR rather than driven by business needs. 

In those situations, resistance rarely shows up as an open objection. More often, it manifests as subtle sidelining—meetings the assignee is not invited to, projects quietly reassigned to local staff, or a general cooling of support. What would be a minor slight in a domestic environment becomes a career-threatening pattern abroad.

Workplace volatility

Another factor is the workplace volatility that affects international roles more acutely. Business strategies shift. Market expansions stall. A leadership change can instantly deprioritize the very initiative an assignee was sent to deliver. Instead of openly acknowledging that the role no longer fits the new direction, some managers simply allow the assignee’s responsibilities to evaporate. 

The employee becomes a high-cost outlier­—still on payroll, still navigating a foreign environment, yet with no clear contribution to the host organization. Quiet firing becomes a convenient, if unethical, way to encourage them to exit on their own terms.

The reluctance to formally terminate an international assignee also plays a role. Ending an overseas assignment is complex. Immigration rules, severance expectations, tax equalization, repatriation logistics, and reputational considerations all come into play. Because of the administrative weight of a formal termination, some managers and even some HR teams prefer to look the other way rather than engage in difficult conversations. Quiet firing becomes the path of least resistance—the silent nudge that pushes an assignee toward resignation without triggering paperwork or legal review.

Most telling sign

Perhaps the most telling sign that quiet firing is alive and well in global mobility is how often employees themselves remain silent. Many assignees will tolerate marginalization far longer than domestic employees, fearing that speaking up might jeopardize their visa status or reflect poorly on their family, who may have moved with them. Others second-guess whether the challenges they’re facing stem from cultural misunderstandings rather than deliberate exclusion. By the time mobility or HR learns what’s happening, the damage is usually done.

Global mobility consultants and HRBPs frequently encounter the fallout: early repatriations without explanation, mid-assignment resignations, expats who return home feeling bruised and underutilized, or employees who complete an assignment only to discover there is no meaningful role waiting for them. These real-world stories are quiet firing in action—they are simply spread across borders, time zones, and organizational layers, which makes the pattern harder to identify.

And the consequences are far greater than the loss of a single employee. Failed assignments undermine ROI, weaken trust in mobility programs, and create skepticism among high-potential employees who might otherwise embrace international opportunities. Word travels quickly in expat communities and global talent networks. Stories of being sidelined abroad can damage employer reputation in critical markets for years.

So yes—quiet firing absolutely happens in global mobility. In fact, the conditions surrounding global assignments often make it more likely. What makes it especially damaging is not just the subtlety of the act but the high stakes attached to it. When someone uproots their life for an assignment, a quiet sidelining isn’t just a workplace slight—it’s a profound personal and professional disruption.

For mobility leaders, acknowledging this reality is the first step toward preventing it. The next step is designing programs, support structures, and manager expectations that eliminate ambiguity and make it harder for quiet firing to take root at all.