“That’s not my job”: when an employee refuses a task outside their duties

The scene: a refusal the whole shift can hear

The warehouse was a person short for getting a dispatch ready. The manager turned to Kamil, a forklift truck operator: “Leave goods-in for a bit and give them a hand with the packing.” Kamil looked at the cartons piling up: “That’s not my job.” The area went quiet. Everyone had heard him refuse.

The manager replied: “We all do a bit extra round here from time to time.” Kamil answered: “Except I’ve been doing it every day for two weeks, and my goods-in backlog doesn’t just disappear.” The manager took this as undermining his authority. Kamil was convinced that nobody noticed how much he had on.

After the shift, the team was no longer talking about the staffing gap but about whether an employee is allowed to say “no”. Nobody had agreed who would take over the goods-in backlog, how long the packing would take, or whether the task was within Kamil’s authorisations and consistent with a safe organisation of work.

Words spoken in front of witnesses take on a life of their own. Some employees see Kamil’s behaviour as courage; others worry that next time a dispatch is due, nobody will help. Both readings may be premature. The form of the refusal alone doesn’t settle whether the work is shared fairly. What also matters is how often Kamil gets tasks like this, whether he has time for them and whether the rules apply to everyone.

What really happened

The manager saw an urgent task and an employee who refused to help. Kamil saw yet another instruction with no information about which duties he should put aside or who would be responsible for them. “That’s not my job” sounded provocative. Yet it was only Kamil’s further explanation that revealed a significant problem: a growing workload. Nor was it established whether the task fell within the employee’s duties or required additional qualifications. In situations like this, a manager should separate work organisation from legal and safety questions. It will also help to check how many times in recent weeks Kamil has been asked for similar help and which tasks were put aside without explanation on those occasions.

The supervisor should look separately at how the instruction was given and whether it could realistically be carried out. If he says only “you need to be flexible”, he doesn’t explain who will deal with the delayed goods-in. If Kamil says only “no”, he doesn’t convey how overloaded he is. A good conversation lets both sides name the problem precisely enough for an organisational decision to be made.

Making sense of it: what the research says

Research on tasks perceived as illegitimate describes situations in which an employee sees an instruction as unjustified or unnecessary. A 2026 meta-analysis by Li and Mostafa, covering 141 samples, shows that such tasks are linked to attitudes towards work and to well-being. This doesn’t mean that every request for help outside the usual routine is an abuse. What matters is the justification, the scale, whether the task can actually be done, and whether the manager recognises the cost to other duties. A public refusal, in turn, can trigger a reflex in the manager to defend their authority, which can obscure the real problem.

The research is about tasks being perceived as illegitimate, not about automatically establishing a breach of the law. An employee may consider a task unfair even though it falls within their duties. They may also agree to help with something that, in the specific circumstances, should not be done without the required authorisations. These questions need to be settled separately, rather than replaced with a judgement of Kamil’s attitude.

How to approach it

The manager can start by ending the public dispute: “Let’s sort out in private which tasks need doing today and what can wait.” Then he should ask: “What will be left unfinished if you move to packing now?” Having listened to the answer, he needs to be clear about the priority, how long the extra work will last and who will take over the remaining duties. If the task goes beyond the employee’s authorisations, the problem must not be solved by applying pressure. For his part, the employee can replace a general “not my job” with a specific message: “I can help, but I need a decision on who takes over my goods-in.”

When the dispatch needs an immediate decision, the manager can set the priority but should also say clearly what changes: “For the next hour you’re helping with packing. Bartek will take over goods-in, and we’ll go through the outstanding paperwork at two.” If there is no cover, the deadline or the scope of the orders has to be adjusted. Don’t pretend the tasks will get done by themselves.

The conversation after the refusal: four questions instead of a public reprimand

Once they’re off the shop floor, the manager might say: “I stopped that conversation because I need to work out how we get the dispatch out. What happens to your other tasks when I ask you to do packing?” Kamil can set out the facts: the number of shifts with extra work, the delayed goods-in and the times he lacked support. It’s important not to turn the conversation into a contest over who has suffered more.

The next question should lead to a decision: “Which task can we safely move today, and which can’t we?” Finally, it’s worth discussing the form of the refusal separately: “I need you to tell me straight away which task will suffer and what decision you need from me. I don’t want arguments in public, but I do want to know when you’re overloaded.” A message like this sets boundaries without undermining the right to raise problems.

What to agree as a team so the problem doesn’t keep coming back

If requests for help outside people’s usual tasks are frequent, it’s worth creating a simple rule: who decides on a change of priorities, who takes over the duties that are put aside, and how long the extra task lasts. The team should also know in which situations authorisation or additional training is needed. The rule has to work in practice during absences and order peaks, too.

After a week, the manager can check whether the workload really is being shared more fairly. Asking “Is everything calm now?” isn’t enough. It’s better to compare the number of extra tasks, overtime and backlogs. If it’s always the same person rescuing dispatches at the expense of their own work, what’s needed is an adjustment to staffing or to the plan, not another conversation about loyalty. Rules of cooperation are built through decisions that can be checked.

Refusing an extra task doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of engagement. A manager should clarify the scope of the instruction, the workload and the priorities, and then agree how obstacles should be raised. A calm conversation about the facts makes it possible to maintain accountability without a public battle over authority.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Before the conversation, the manager can describe to Em both versions of events, his own irritation and any possible constraints on the work. Em will help him prepare questions that don’t imply laziness, and a message that separates the urgency of the task from any judgement of the person. If relationship context is available, the tips can help him pitch the tone to the specific employee. Kamil, for his part, can use Em to set out his concerns calmly and ask for priorities to be changed. Preparing like this allows both sides to agree who is responsible for which task and where the real limits of cooperation lie. The manager can also practise with Em a calm response to a refusal in front of others, so that he deals with the urgent task first and only later discusses the way things were said and their mutual expectations.

A good exercise is to ask Em for two versions of the response: a short reply on the shop floor and a calm conversation after the shift. The manager can compare which words sound like an accusation and which set the priority clearly. After the meeting, it’s worth going back to Em with a summary of the agreed actions to refine the message for the whole shift.