Most good employees don’t wake up one morning and decide they’re done trying. It usually happens a little at a time. They come to work wanting to do a good job, take responsibility for things that aren’t necessarily theirs, help coworkers who need it, and try to fix problems before those problems become somebody else’s headache.

They’re usually the people you can count on when something needs to get done, even when it means doing more than what’s expected of them.

That’s also why organizations sometimes fail to recognize when they’re losing those employees. They’re still showing up, still doing their jobs, and still getting the work done. They haven’t necessarily become difficult or started causing problems. In fact, they may have stopped complaining altogether. A manager might see that as an improvement without realizing what it actually means.

I’ve never believed that every employee complaint deserves a management response beyond hearing it out. Some people complain about everything. The schedule, the workload, their coworkers, the boss, and whatever else happens to irritate them that day. But there’s a difference between somebody who complains because they enjoy complaining and somebody who keeps bringing up a problem because they genuinely want to see it fixed.

When a dependable employee tells you that someone isn’t carrying their share of the workload, or that a process doesn’t work, or that standards are being enforced differently depending on who’s involved, you should pay attention.

That doesn’t mean they’re automatically right, and it certainly doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything they say. But when the same legitimate problems keep coming up and nobody does anything about them, the employee eventually learns that speaking up accomplishes nothing.

I think one of the fastest ways to wear down a good employee is to hold them to a higher standard simply because you know they’ll meet it. Most good employees can handle high expectations.

What wears them down is watching those expectations applied selectively. You address one employee for being late while ignoring another who routinely comes in whenever they please. You expect your dependable people to pick up the slack because it’s easier to ask them for help than to deal with somebody who isn’t doing their job. Before long, the people you trust the most are carrying responsibilities that belong to people you’re unwilling to confront.

Or worse, you catch one employee sleeping on the job. Instead of addressing that employee, you require everybody to check in every hour. Now you’ve punished your entire workforce because you weren’t willing to deal with one person. That’s the kind of weak leadership that has good employees looking for another job.

Both approaches make management’s job easier in the short term. The work gets finished because dependable employees pick up the slack, and the hourly check-ins create the appearance that something has been done about the employee sleeping on duty. But neither approach addresses the actual problem. Instead, you’ve made the employees who were already doing their jobs responsible for compensating for somebody who wasn’t.

Eventually, those employees recognize what’s happening. They stop volunteering for assignments that aren’t theirs. They stop staying late unless they’re required to. They stop trying to fix every problem they encounter. Sometimes management interprets that change as a poor attitude or a decline in work ethic, even though the employee may still be doing everything their actual job requires. There’s a difference between somebody refusing to do their job and somebody deciding they’re no longer going to do everybody else’s.

Recognition plays a part in this too, although I don’t believe employees need constant praise for doing what they’re already paid to do. I’ve never been much for handing out trophies just because somebody showed up and met the minimum expectations. But employees do notice when the only time they hear from their supervisor is when something goes wrong. They notice when additional responsibilities become permanent expectations without any acknowledgment, and they certainly notice when poor performers receive the same opportunities and consideration as the people keeping the operation running.

Compensation can make some of that easier to tolerate, but money doesn’t resolve every problem. An employee might accept another dollar an hour and still resent coming to work every morning. If the underlying problem is poor supervision, inconsistent standards, or an organization that takes dependable people for granted, paying them a little more doesn’t necessarily change how they feel about working there.

Of course, I wouldn’t automatically blame management every time an employee loses interest in their job. People change. Their circumstances change. Some develop unrealistic expectations, some become dissatisfied with work they once enjoyed, and some simply stop putting forth the effort they’re being paid to provide. Employees have responsibilities of their own, and frustration with management doesn’t excuse poor performance or give somebody permission to make everyone else’s job harder.

But there’s a point where leadership has to recognize a pattern. If one previously dependable employee starts having problems, I’d want to understand what’s going on with that employee. If several of my best employees are becoming disengaged, leaving, or doing only what’s absolutely required, I’m going to start looking a lot harder at the organization they’re working in, including my own part in it. I can’t reasonably expect employees to take ownership of their performance while refusing to examine my responsibility for the environment they’re working in.

The employee I’d worry about most isn’t necessarily the one who’s angry enough to tell me what’s wrong. At least that person is still willing to have the conversation. I’d be more concerned about the employee who used to bring problems to my attention, offer solutions, and take responsibility without being asked, but now responds with some version of “I just work here.” Something has changed, and there’s a good chance it happened long before anybody in management noticed.

By that point, fixing the original complaint may not be enough. What started as a scheduling problem, an unfair workload, or a supervisor refusing to address poor performance has become a question of whether the employee has any confidence in the organization anymore. Rebuilding that confidence is a lot harder than addressing the problem when it was first brought to your attention.

And sometimes you don’t get the opportunity. The employee leaves, the organization advertises the vacancy, interviews candidates, hires somebody new, and eventually starts complaining about how difficult it is to find good employees.

Maybe finding good employees really is difficult. But before blaming the labor market, the younger generation, or the supposed disappearance of work ethic, I’d want to know what happened to the good employees who were already there.