Although the phenomenon of disgruntled employees “ghosting” (also known as “quiet quitting” or “slow quitting”) their workplaces is rife with financial and ethical impacts for the life cycle of clinical research studies, interdisciplinary solutions for detecting and correcting the behavior offer some peace of mind, according to the creators behind a poster that placed in the top three among those presented at ACRP 2025.
Given how many employees now perform what used to be central office–based work from home or other remote environments, employers are challenged with timely identification of reduced performance of individuals across the global landscape, notes Estela G. Staggs, MCRA, MSN, CCRA, a Senior Clinical Research Associate. “The environment is fast paced and relentless, with very real costs to employers being seen when people in clinical research coordinator and clinical research associate roles, among others, start ghosting, which is basically letting their productivity levels slide in ways that often go unnoticed too long by their organizations,” she says.
Staggs put together the poster on this topic seen at ACRP 2025 in New Orleans with Leah Orozco, MS, CCRA, a Clinical Trial Manager at Moderna, and Sarah Gonzales, CPTC. They say that, with ghosting occurring as an employee’s productivity is reduced over longer periods of time, the practice only adds to the costs associated with an estimate of three to six months for onboarding and training to eventually replace the employee. Factoring in compensation and benefits, the loss of a single staff member can cost an organization as much as $30,000 to $76,000, the poster team estimates—and this does not include the onboarding time necessary on various clinical trial platforms involving the time of ancillary staff down the road.
“While on the surface these additional fees and effort could seem minimal, they are amplified by the number of sites that experience turnover,” Orozco notes. Further, “This estimated sum does not include calculations related to an increase in potential errors from each turnover.”
Truly serious cases of ghosting can also result in long- and short-term legal ramifications for any clinical trials with which the underperforming employees are involved, the team members say. “Neglect from duties, falsification of records, and misinterpretation of clinical protocols can present a true danger to subject safety,” Orozco explains.
Self-governance with self-reporting of ghosting problems by affected sites should be encouraged when possible, the team advises, noting that, while the reporting requirements for individual institutional review boards will vary, the provision to provide sponsors with summary information of site- specific actions is universal.
Staggs, Orozco, and Gonzales also offer the following advice:
- Sites should be active in detection and mitigation tactics if this behavior is detected. Mitigation efforts can reduce actual position turnover if caught early and with employee preservation in mind.
- Regular meetings and engagement with remote employees may assist to gauge employee satisfaction by offering solutions, time, or alternatives to performance-related issues.
- Recognize that measuring hours logged in may not be the best tactic for assessing productivity. Remote work can offer flexibility in a typical work day.
- Assess the possibilities for salvaging underperforming employees. Performance indicators will alert management if employees are not meeting metrics, but fail to provide background. A reduction of performance could be transient and related to a limited event.
- Solicit feedback from employees using blinded tactics. Assess whole-employee relationships, including an understanding of highs and lows in performance throughout the year. One-on-one calls with employees can sustain motivation and engagement.
Edited by Gary Cramer