High performers withdraw months before resigning. Three research frameworks help managers recognize the patterns, diagnose the causes, and intervene before talent walks out the door.
We all recognize the silent treatment when we see it. In relationships, it's obvious: someone stops engaging, stops sharing, pulls away. At work, it looks different but feels the same.
Your senior developer stops pushing back on technical debt decisions. Your project lead stops mentoring junior staff. In meetings, your most experienced analyst—usually the first to spot problems—says nothing when someone presents flawed assumptions.
By the time they resign, they've been mentally gone for months.
Research shows this pattern is measurable and consistent: high performers reduce contributions long before exit. Yet most managers miss the signals because they're watching for performance problems instead of withdrawal.
For managers, understanding why your top people go silent requires zooming out and zooming in at equal measures—systemic, structural problems can be invisible with a top-down approach, while personal employee-level issues can require genuine emotional intelligence and empathy to uncover.
Here are some frameworks that can make it easier to explain what you're seeing, how it progresses, and what drives the choice between speaking up and leaving.
Not all silence predicts turnover. Van Dyne, Soon, and Botero's 2003 research identifies three distinct types based on employee motivation:
High performers don't go silent overnight. The progression is gradual enough that managers often miss it until it's too late.
It typically starts when someone's voice meets resistance. They raise a concern and nothing happens. Or worse, they sense pushback—a dismissive response, a change in how they're perceived, a subtle shift in relationships. At this point, they're testing: does my input actually matter here? They begin calculating whether continued engagement makes sense.
If the answer comes back negative, protection mode sets in. They become selective about what they share and with whom. The open communication that characterized their earlier work disappears. Self-preservation becomes the priority. They're no longer thinking about how to improve things; they're thinking about how to avoid getting burned.
The next stage is harder to reverse. Acquiescent silence takes over—the "why bother?" mindset that comes from learned helplessness. Contributions become minimal. When asked for input, you get "whatever you think" or "I'm fine with that." They've concluded their voice doesn't matter, and they've stopped trying.
By the final stage, they've completely withdrawn from discretionary effort. They're doing exactly what's required and nothing more. The job search has probably started. Mentally, they've already left; they're just waiting for the logistics to catch up.
Most managers notice problems at the "why bother?" stage or later, when intervention becomes difficult or impossible. The critical moment to catch is earlier—when someone who previously spoke up freely begins testing whether their input still matters. That's when you still have time to act.
Hirschman's foundational framework states that when employees encounter problems, they have three options: voice (attempt to change from within), exit (leave), or loyalty (stay committed despite problems).
Employees choose exit when voice proves futile. The cost-benefit calculation shifts when:
Senior employees recognize futility earlier than others because they've accumulated evidence from previous feedback cycles. They've observed consequences for colleagues who spoke up. They understand which issues leadership genuinely cares about versus which are untouchable.
Track what happens after people speak up. If feedback consistently disappears without acknowledgment or explanation, you're training people to choose exit over voice.
When your best people go quiet, start with two questions: What type of silence is this, and how far has it progressed?
Acquiescent silence looks like apathy and minimal responses—"whatever you think" answers that signal someone has given up. Defensive silence looks like careful language, selective sharing, and avoidance of controversial topics.
Watch for behavioral shifts: when someone who previously challenged decisions stops doing so, they've likely moved from active contribution to testing or protection. Early phases respond to targeted interventions. Late phases require systemic changes.
The pattern is predictable. If people consistently leave after periods of high voice, your mechanisms exist but produce no results. If people leave after periods of low voice, they've already concluded speaking up doesn't work.
Open-door policies fail because they place the entire psychological burden on employees to overcome status differences and fear. Structured approaches work better because they normalize voice as expected behavior.
Regular retrospectives give teams space to discuss what's working and what isn't. Make these genuine working sessions by acting on feedback every time, even if only partially. Round-robin formats in meetings require each person to contribute after brief individual reflection, preventing senior or vocal people from setting parameters before others speak. Clear escalation paths help people know exactly when and how to raise different types of concerns—uncertainty about whether an issue is "big enough" to raise creates defensive silence.
Speed matters. Implement a 48-hour acknowledgment rule: thank the person, explain next steps, commit to a timeline. The acknowledgment itself signals that input matters.
Create "You Said, We Did" communications that document feedback received, actions taken, and results. Include examples of feedback that couldn't be implemented and explain why. People can accept unfavorable decisions if they understand the reasoning.
Acquiescent silence requires demonstrating that voice produces outcomes: pick one piece of feedback from this person, act on it, then communicate what changed and why. Defensive silence requires leader behavior—acknowledge uncertainty, admit fallibility, ask questions rather than presenting solutions, and respond to bad news with curiosity rather than blame.
Research shows highest voice levels when employees feel strong connection to organizational goals and personal control over their work. You need both.
Give teams genuine decision-making authority over meaningful issues—their processes, priorities, and resource allocation, not just where to hold the holiday party. Share real business challenges and involve employees in solving them. Generic presentations with polished messages do the opposite. Consider ownership mechanisms from profit-sharing to equity that create literal alignment between employee and organizational success.
The frameworks provide three diagnostic tools: identify which type of silence you're seeing and match the intervention. Recognize where people are on the withdrawal trajectory—early intervention at the testing phase prevents progression to learned helplessness. Track whether voice leads to exit or retention.
Most managers watch for performance decline and miss withdrawal. The question isn't whether your best people telegraph their departure—they do, consistently. The question is whether you recognize the signals and intervene before they start updating their LinkedIn profiles.
Every organization's needs are different. With our global learning options, we're ready to help you find the right program to achieve your talent development goals.
