Strategic Withdrawal Vs. Checking Out

Forbes

10-06-2025

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD // Founder and CEO, Human Capital Innovations // Chief Academic & Learning Officer, HCI Academy.
Throughout my consulting career, I've observed a concerning pattern: In their quest to make work more tolerable, many professionals inadvertently make it less meaningful. I have found there to be a critical distinction between avoidance-oriented job crafting and escape-oriented disengagement, which has significant implications for employee engagement and organizational performance.
While they may appear similar on the surface, these behaviors stem from different motivations and lead to markedly different outcomes. By understanding this nuanced relationship, leaders and HR professionals can develop more effective interventions that address the underlying causes of disengagement rather than merely treating its symptoms.
Job crafting is the physical and cognitive changes individuals make to tasks or relational boundaries of their work. This pioneering research of Wrzesniewski and Dutton recognized that employees aren't passive recipients of job design but active shapers of their work experience. The concept has continued to evolve to encompass a variety of dimensions, such as being viewed through the lens of job demands-resources theory.
In my work with healthcare professionals, I have found that understanding job crafting as a multidimensional construct is essential. Job crafting isn't simply "good" or "bad"—its impact depends on how and why it's employed. This nuance becomes particularly important when examining avoidant forms of job crafting.
Research has identified several key dimensions of job crafting:
• Increasing structural job resources (seeking opportunities for development)
• Increasing social job resources (seeking feedback or coaching)
• Increasing challenging job demands (initiating new projects)
• Decreasing hindering job demands (reducing emotional or cognitive strain)
This final dimension—decreasing hindering demands—is where avoidant job crafting typically manifests, though not all demand-reduction behaviors are inherently avoidant.
Avoidant job crafting refers to behaviors aimed at reducing aspects of work that employees find aversive, threatening or excessively demanding. Unlike approach-oriented crafting (which adds positive elements to work), avoidant crafting focuses on minimizing negative elements.
In my work with technology companies, I've documented several common avoidant crafting behaviors:
• Reducing interaction with difficult colleagues or clients
• Delegating emotionally taxing tasks
• Creating procedural barriers that limit exposure to stressful situations
• Narrowing job scope to focus on less challenging responsibilities
• Restructuring workflows to minimize cognitive load
These behaviors aren't inherently problematic—indeed, they can be adaptive responses to genuinely hindering demands. The critical distinction lies in the intent behind these behaviors and whether they represent strategic boundary management or the beginning of psychological withdrawal.
Research has distinguished between avoidance-oriented crafting aimed at self-protection versus avoidance behavior stemming from disengagement. The former represents a calculated effort to preserve resources and maintain functioning; the latter reflects giving up.
Work disengagement represents a psychological state characterized by emotional, cognitive and behavioral withdrawal from work roles. Kahn, who pioneered engagement research, described disengagement as the "uncoupling of selves from work roles," resulting in passive, incomplete role performances.
Disengagement exists on a continuum, from mild detachment to complete psychological withdrawal. Research suggests disengagement isn't simply the absence of engagement but a distinct psychological state with its own antecedents and consequences.
Escape-oriented behaviors differ fundamentally from avoidant job crafting. While both involve reducing certain aspects of work, escape behaviors are:
• Reactive rather than strategic
• Motivated by withdrawal rather than preservation
• Lacking in compensatory engagement elsewhere
• Characterized by psychological resignation rather than adaptation
In my consulting work with financial institutions, I observed employees who superficially displayed similar behaviors—reducing meeting attendance, limiting client interaction—but with profoundly different motivations and outcomes. Those engaged in strategic avoidant crafting redirected energy to value-adding activities; those exhibiting escape behaviors simply withdrew without compensatory engagement.
The key distinction between avoidant job crafting and escape-oriented disengagement lies in motivation. Recent research found that avoidant crafting is often preventive—aimed at preserving resources and preventing burnout—while escape behaviors are primarily defensive and withdrawal-oriented.
In my own research interviews, employees engaging in avoidant crafting consistently expressed motivation to optimize their work experience, while those experiencing disengagement described motivation to minimize their work presence entirely. This distinction in intent produces markedly different outcomes.
The consequences of avoidant job crafting versus escape-oriented disengagement differ significantly:
Avoidant job crafting potential outcomes:
• Can preserve mental health and prevent burnout
• May lead to increased engagement in preferred work aspects
• Often results in sustainable performance maintenance
• Typically maintains professional identity and meaning
Escape-oriented disengagement potential outcomes:
• Associated with decreased overall well-being
• Leads to diminished performance across all work domains
• Results in reduced organizational commitment
• Often precipitates turnover intentions
Distinguishing strategic avoidant crafting from disengagement requires attention to both behaviors and motivations. Based on my consulting experience, I recommend assessing:
• Whether the reduction in certain activities corresponds with increased investment elsewhere
• The employee's articulated rationale for behavioral changes
• Whether performance on core metrics remains stable
• The presence of continued discretionary effort
• Whether professional relationships remain intact
Organizations can encourage adaptive forms of avoidant crafting while minimizing risks of disengagement through:
• Creating psychological safety: Psychological safety allows employees to engage in appropriate boundary-setting without fear of repercussion.
• Developing crafting competence: In my work with pharmaceutical research teams, crafting workshops that explicitly taught strategic avoidance techniques (alongside approach-oriented strategies) resulted in higher engagement scores compared to control groups.
• Encouraging collaborative crafting: When teams craft together, individual avoidance behaviors remain visible and accountable.
• Addressing underlying issues: Often, excessive avoidant crafting signals legitimate organizational problems. My work with university faculty revealed that increasing administrative demands drove avoidant crafting; addressing these root causes proved more effective than targeting the crafting behaviors themselves.
Understanding avoidant job crafting versus escape-oriented disengagement is crucial for today's leaders. As work intensifies, employees naturally adapt to manage demands. Rather than universally discouraging or ignoring avoidant behaviors, organizations should recognize underlying motivations and create environments where such strategies become sustainable adaptations rather than paths to disengagement.
By acknowledging that "avoidance" differs from "escape," I have found that leaders can foster workplaces where employees modify roles positively, sustaining both engagement and performance in our increasingly autonomous work environment.
Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?