Why Good Employees Withdraw and How This Hurts Your Organization
Every day in organizations worldwide, employees identify problems and approach their managers seeking collaboration and support. Too often, instead of partnership, they encounter skepticism or blame. This is not because the managers are bad people; rather it is because the managers have not had sufficient training in how to deal with problems that fall outside the norm and that fall into the realm of uncomfortable and difficult.
The predictable result is that the employees withdraw, find less productive ways forward, or they escalate into conflict. However it unfolds, it is not a pleasant day for either side. But it does not have to be like that.
As a former FBI agent who developed science-based interpersonal communication protocols now taught to over 10,000 people, I recently experienced this dynamic firsthand during what should have been a relatively routine request for help. Let’s look at how it played out and how it could have played out better.
The Situation
During a Viking cruise in Norway, my wife's phone was stolen on a mountain hike. I immediately knew it had been taken because when I opened the "Find My" app, I could see her phone driving down the road that led off of the mountain top. Not a good moment.
My initial inclination was to track the phone on foot and handle it myself, but I quickly realized this wasn't possible. So, we hurried back to the boat and went to Viking Guest Services to ask for assistance contacting Norwegian police.
Viking prides itself on exemplary customer service, and this is absolutely true for routine interactions – greeting me by name, handing me my favorite whisky at the bar, discussing shore excursions, and so forth. They are truly great at the predictable stuff. And the below commentary aside, I absolutely loved my experience on Viking.
Unfortunately, when presented with an urgent, non-routine problem, the flaws in their training became immediately evident. They had scripts for standard questions but no framework for unusual situations. Which seems baffling, because with nearly 1000 people on board, someone is going to have an off-script problem several times each voyage.
Instead of being connected to the Norwegian police as I’d expected, I was drawn into a 30-minute argument about why they should not help us.
"You Can't Prove It Was Stolen"
We were initially told that we could not prove the phone had been stolen, despite clear tracking evidence showing it driving away and it not being where it should be.
I came into this conversation expecting collaboration. I had information, I wanted to solve the problem quickly, and I just needed organizational support to make it happen. Instead, I was met with skepticism and resistance, which began to move me from cooperative to argumentative.
Let's give the guest services rep the benefit of the doubt here. She's faced with a situation her company hasn't trained her to handle. She knows she's supposed to be confident and collect information, so she attempts to do that. In her mind, she probably wants to say something like "okay, before we call the police, can you help me understand how you know the phone was stolen?"
But her training isn't adequate, so she panics and becomes defensive. What comes out of her mouth is argumentative skepticism, and she doesn't understand how sounding doubtful will pull me and my wife toward increasingly maladaptive responses. And at this point my wife left the conversation to try to find alternative routes as, at this point, the conversation was going nowhere productive.
"Your Beliefs Aren't Evidence"
When I reiterated my need to talk to the police because I had a description of the vehicle the phone was likely in, a new customer service agent took over. She explained to me how my belief about the car was not evidence, and my belief would be of no value to the police.
Again, despite the absolute nonsense that came out of her mouth, let's give her the benefit of the doubt that she was trying. What she probably wanted to say was: "I understand you have information you want to convey to police. Help me understand how you believe the car is connected, and then we can relay that information to them."
But she didn't say that, even if that's what she meant. She just told me what was not going to happen. And what's the predictable outcome of that approach?
The Predictable Cascade
First outcome: Withdrawal from the conversation and the issue. When you're looking for collaboration but meet skepticism and doubt, complete withdrawal is a natural response. It is, in fact, the most probable response, and this damages your organization when employees become actively disengaged.
Second outcome: Rather than pure withdrawal, employees generate their own solutions to the problems, which often may not align with the overall goals of the organization. In this instance, my wife withdrew and began to look into what she could accomplish without Viking’s assistance.
Third outcome: Increasing frustration and resentment toward the organization. I've spent most of my life having difficult conversations and almost never get angry – I remember the last time I was genuinely angry, and it was seven years ago. In this case, I absolutely understood how their maladaptive behavior was pulling me toward my own maladaptive responses, but it became an undertow I could feel myself being caught in.
I was committed to solving the problem, so I didn’t withdraw, but I caught myself being pulled toward anger, despite understanding exactly what their poor training was doing to the conversation. That's how powerful these dynamics are – even experts can feel the undertow.
Fortunately, I quickly brought it back to direct communication and finally got one of the representatives to dial the police number on the strange early-2000s cell phones Viking gives their staff. She handed me the phone.
After half an hour of argument with Viking, I finally started talking to police – at which point my wife’s phone was now on a ferry leaving the city and chances of quick recovery were gone.
What Effective Communication Looks Like
The contrast when dealing with the Norwegian police was immediate. I found myself talking to an officer who said, "That’s really difficult, tell me what you know." Brief empathy to establish that she cared, then straight to problem-solving – exactly what I needed in that moment.
She took my vehicle description with no pushback, asked me to send screenshots of the phone's current location, explained what they would do next, and collected all my contact information.
When I told her the phone was now in the ocean – either in a tunnel or on a ferry – she immediately identified it as a ferry and said she'd mobilize teams at the landing point.
Within five minutes of hanging up, I received a call from another officer coordinating the search. Three hours later, based on regular updates I provided to them, they'd recovered the phone from a hotel in Innvik, Norway. When Viking again proved unhelpful with return logistics, the police said, "no worries, we'll get a courier to drive it overnight to where you'll be tomorrow."
Corporate Reality
Imagine how often situations exactly like this play out in corporations around the world. An employee recognizes a problem and brings it to their manager, expecting collaboration and support. Instead of being met with "tell me what you know" and problem-solving partnership, they encounter skepticism ("are you sure this is really a problem?") or accusation ("what did you do to cause this?").
The psychological dynamic is identical to what I experienced with Viking. The employee arrives ready to collaborate – they have information, they want to solve the problem, they just need organizational support to make it happen. But when they're met with doubt or blame, the same maladaptive cascade begins:
· withdrawal (they stop bringing problems forward and they stop engaging),
· alternative routes to solving the situation which may hurt rather than help the organizations overall goals, or
· escalating frustration (they become "difficult" employees).
Organizations like Viking that pride themselves on customer service – or companies that claim to have "open door policies" and want employees to surface issues – often fail at the very moment when their training matters most. They're equipped for predictable conversations but fall apart when faced with urgent, unusual problems that don't fit their scripts.
The Norwegian police showed what adaptive communication looks like: just enough acknowledgment to establish partnership, then immediate focus on solution-oriented questions. They understood that in crisis moments, people don't need extensive empathy - they need competent collaboration.
The cost to Viking wasn't just one lost customer. How many other passengers have experienced similar failures? How many employees in your organization have learned not to surface problems because they know they'll face skepticism rather than support?
What Training Should Address
The difference between Viking and Norwegian police wasn't individual competence - it was understanding the psychology of challenging conversations. Effective training focuses on three core principles:
Train to psychology, not scripts. Viking's representatives appeared to have memorized responses for common scenarios, but when faced with something unusual, they defaulted to skepticism and resistance. Understanding why people seek help – and what pulls them toward withdrawal or escalation – matters more than having the "right" words.
Recognize how your behavior affects their behavior. The guest services reps didn't understand that their skeptical responses would predictably trigger both withdrawal and anger. When someone brings you a problem, your reaction determines whether they become a collaborator or an adversary.
Hard conversations suck, but they suck less when you understand the dynamics. No one enjoys dealing with urgent and difficult problems, especially ones laden with emotion. But when you recognize the psychological patterns at play – what people need, what triggers them, how to establish partnership quickly – these situations become manageable rather than messy.
This is what I train: not what to say, but how human psychology works under pressure, and how to use that knowledge to turn potential conflicts into successful collaborations. Every situation is different, and no set of scripts will get you through all of them, but understanding what is happening below the surface and being able to use that to respond to what is happening in front of you will get you through the most difficult situations.
