EMPLOYEE A is driven, does his tasks well, and often takes on work outside his job scope. 

Employee B is someone with a strong sense of boundaries and will not do more than what is expected of him. However, he performs reasonably well in his work. 

When comparing these people, who is the better staff? 

This topic came up in a group conversation and while most chose A, to their surprise, I was not quick to agree with them. 

Instead, I probed further: “Does B produce better work than A in his core duties? Does A neglect or seem disinterested in the job he was hired to do because he is taking on more responsibilities?”

To me, just because A is doing more does not mean B should be “penalised”. After all, they were both hired to do a certain job, and their performance in this specific area should be most important. The “extras”, in my opinion, are just “nice to have”.

A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU

Friday, 2 pm

Lifestyle

Our picks of the latest dining, travel and leisure options to treat yourself.

Sign Up

Of course, the willingness to take on more does imply that a person is versatile and a team player. Naturally, someone like A would be more favourably regarded as such employees can be a boon to their superiors, because they show that their team members have many capabilities.

But such a scenario may cause unhealthy competition among colleagues, as others may feel that the person who is doing more is “spoiling the market”, and they are forced to do more as well in order to prove themselves.

A case of showing off?

Lee Kang Yam, chief learning curator of Flame Centre, a skills training firm, said that managers and supervisors will naturally trust and be willing to assign more work tasks and challenging assignments to staff who have demonstrated good performance and are motivated and dependable. 

“It is normal for highly motivated staff like A to be perceived as too eager to ‘show off’, but … this is part of growing professionally and should be encouraged.”

He added that for people like Employee B, on the other hand, work is but a means to earn income to fund their lifestyle.

“(However), there should not be any negative judgment (towards them). In fact, staff with lifestyle and/or stability anchors may be more willing to stay on with the company, as the current job may offer them the financial and geographical stability (to facilitate the) lifestyle choices which they seek to maintain.”

In this current competitive business climate, all staff are required to do more. This is a given. Employees may have the necessary qualities and skills to join the company, but everyone needs to prove their worth to stay employed. 

That said, it is imperative to not be biased towards someone who is doing more.

Toxic culture

After all, someone who is devoted to doing only his core duties could be more reliable and dependable – and should not be discounted by the organisation. Superiors should, in my opinion, take more care to assuage the worries of such staff, and let them know that they are not expected to take on work outside the job scope as long as they perform well in daily duties. 

Dr Lee said: “Considerations such as quality of the final output and the level of supervisory interventions are needed. Giving more work to some staff may not necessarily be a bad thing. However, managers and supervisors should not overtax the motivated staff while ignoring the strengths of other staff.”

And in this scenario, you would not want to create a toxic culture where both types of subordinates are pitted against each other in a race of “who does more” – especially as employees with firm boundaries may have other priorities, such as family and health. 

One way to motivate both types of staff is to leverage their strengths and provide learning pathways that enable them to stay professionally relevant in the company, even as business and economic conditions change.

The message sent here is that the company is committed to helping all employees grow professionally, regardless of the scope of work they are willing to take on.

But it is normal that the spotlight falls on the shining star, while others are ignored. How, then, can someone who is focused on only doing his main job ensure that he doesn’t lose out?

Personally, I feel that such an employee could help himself by adopting a mindset of curiosity and continuous learning. This is especially since work constantly changes in today’s landscape, and there will be new ways of working.

Linda Teo, country manager at ManpowerGroup Singapore, concurred: “For people with fixed boundaries, it would be helpful to perform outstandingly in the responsibilities they are given. This would enable them to craft a niche for themselves that they are known for, making themselves crucial to the workflow. It would also be useful to show enthusiasm and interest in their current set of responsibilities, to indicate to their supervisors that they are not unmotivated but are instead singularly focused individuals who prefer to specialise in a specific skill set.”

When faced with an uneven division of labour in a team, it’s also important for managers to consider how such a situation came to be. Perhaps the issue is not overzealous or unambitious staff, but rather how work is scoped, defined and allocated.

Despite the trend of placing ever-increasing demands on workers, I think it’s important to still give staff such as A and B, the flexibility to choose how they approach their work. People should be able to decide if they want to take on more outside their given scope of work without fear of repercussions, such as being passed over for promotions.