A viral discussion has emerged regarding a workplace strategy shared by an efficient employee who deliberately exaggerates their busyness to prevent management from assigning additional tasks. This approach addresses the common issue where transparency about finishing tasks early often leads to “performance punishment” rather than reward. The employee argues that in many modern office cultures, appearing constantly “swamped” is the only effective defense against an unmanageable workload.
The Efficiency Paradox
The central argument presented is that companies frequently treat an employee’s speed and efficiency as spare capacity. The author of the post notes that while high performers might receive a nominal raise (e.g., 5%), they are often burdened with a disproportionate increase in workload (e.g., 50%) and stress. Consequently, slower workers may be perceived as less replaceable or more valuable because they do not expose their available bandwidth, effectively protecting themselves from burnout while efficient workers are exploited.
Self-Preservation in a Tough Market
This tactic is described not as an act of laziness, but as a necessary measure for self-preservation in an unstable job market. The employee emphasizes that they continue to meet deadlines and deliver high-quality work; the strategy is strictly used to manage expectations and protect mental health. By managing the perception of their workload, they aim to secure their position and avoid the burnout that typically accompanies the “reward” of extra work given to fast performers.
Mentoring question
Reflecting on your own team or work habits, does the current incentive structure reward efficiency with recognition and balance, or does it inadvertently punish high performers by simply adding more volume to their plate?