Intrenion

Pattern: Quiet attrition

Capable individuals disengage or leave without triggering a response.

Situation

1. In this condition, capable individuals continue to meet baseline performance expectations while visibly reducing discretionary effort and initiative.
2. In this condition, participation in meetings, mentoring, and cross-functional contributions declines without formal performance warnings being issued.
3. In this condition, departures of high performers are accompanied by neutral or non-confrontational explanations that do not reference internal conflict.
4. In this condition, leadership expresses surprise at exits despite a prior observable reduction in engagement.
5. In this condition, replacement hiring begins only after resignation rather than in anticipation of risk.
6. In this condition, workload is redistributed among the remaining staff without structural role redesign.
7. In this condition, engagement surveys or feedback mechanisms are conducted while subsequent structural changes are not visibly implemented.

Assessment

1. This occurs because performance management systems measure visible output rather than changes in discretionary effort.
2. This occurs because raising structural concerns carries personal risk while offering a limited probability of corrective action.
3. This occurs because decision authority over compensation, workload, and role design is separated from those who directly observe disengagement.
4. This occurs because leadership incentives prioritize short-term delivery stability over long-term capability retention.
5. This occurs because exit processes capture information after departure when the leverage to adjust conditions is already lost.
6. This occurs because capable individuals have external labor-market options that lower their tolerance for unresolved friction.
7. This occurs because gradual disengagement remains within acceptable performance thresholds and therefore does not trigger formal intervention mechanisms.

Consequence

1. Without changes to performance measurement, gradual disengagement remains undetected until formal exit occurs.
2. Without the redistribution of decision authority, those observing disengagement remain unable to alter underlying conditions.
3. Without altering leadership incentives, retention risk remains subordinated to short-term delivery stability.
4. Without earlier intervention mechanisms, institutional knowledge continues to leave through voluntary exits.
5. Without a structural response to feedback signals, the credibility of engagement processes continues to erode.

Decisions

1. We decide to cap our discretionary effort to the explicit requirements of our formal role because this gives us control over energy expenditure and preserves external option value instead of continuing to contribute beyond scope in expectation of informal recognition, and accept that informal influence and internal visibility may decline.
2. We decide to document all material contributions and outcomes in a private, portable record because this gives us defensible evidence of impact for external mobility instead of relying on internal advocacy or retrospective manager summaries, and accept that maintaining this record consumes personal time.
3. We decide to set a fixed personal timeline for reassessing our position and to initiate external job applications if structural conditions remain unchanged, because this gives us bounded exposure to ongoing disengagement instead of waiting indefinitely for internal reform signals, and accept that this may reduce our psychological commitment to long-term internal projects.

Direct formulations

1. I will limit my effort to the responsibilities explicitly defined in my role and stop taking on additional work that is not formally recognized.
2. I will keep a private record of my measurable contributions and outcomes rather than relying on others to summarize my performance.
3. I will set a personal deadline to reassess my position and begin applying externally if conditions remain unchanged.