About

Fast Company advises supervisors to weigh cost and reward before large workload requests

Published
Score
7

Why it matters

A Fast Company management column argues that supervisors should limit requests for extra work to tasks that fit an employee's job description. It says catch-all "other duties" language typically covers occasional extra tasks, but a large ask should never cost the employee more than it returns. The column's central concern is power imbalance. Employees often agree to requests from supervisors who control evaluations and promotions, even when they should decline. The piece warns that assigning heavy loads to cheaper, less-experienced workers can add hours and stress, and that committed employees may leave when a manager asks far more than they give back. Its recommended fix is to name the personal or career benefit of the extra work when making the request.

No new event, policy change, lawsuit, or regulatory action is tied to the column. No companies, agencies, or statutes are named in the excerpt. The catch-all language it discusses reflects standard HR practice, such as the "other duties" line recommended in a UCSB HR guide. Commentary on that practice notes that vague clauses can gradually absorb a worker's primary duties, which makes workload accountability harder to track.

For employment attorneys, the column is a reminder that vague job descriptions create workload-creep risk. Clients drafting job descriptions should consider whether an "other duties" clause could expand a role over time. Documenting how extra assignments relate to the original role is a practical step, particularly where pay, classification, or accommodation questions could later arise.

Sources

mail Subscribe to Employment Law email updates

Primary sources. No fluff. Straight to your inbox.

Also on LawSnap