6 Steps to Decline Additional Work from Your Manager [With Example Scripts]
It's a situation most of us have faced at one point or another - your manager wants to pile more work on your plate when you're already feeling overloaded.
While you want to be a team player, constantly taking on more is an unsustainable path toward burnout. The key is learning how to have an open discussion about re-prioritizing responsibilities and getting your manager to respect your bandwidth.
6 Steps to Decline Additional Work
Step 1: Assess Requests Objectively
Take a hard look at your priorities and commitments before declining a request. Make an honest assessment of whether the request is truly unrealistic given your existing workload.
Step 2: Schedule a Discussion
Schedule a meeting with your manager to explain your stance on taking on more work. Approach the conversation with a calm, professional attitude focused on solutions, not complaints.
Step 3: Propose Compromises
Prepare alternatives that allow the work to get done while protecting your bandwidth. Look for tasks that can be temporarily de-prioritized or delayed, and suggest delegating tasks to others on the team.
Step 4: Get Agreement in Writing
Document any agreements made with your manager, including changes to your workload, new deadlines, and any re-prioritized tasks. This creates accountability and prevents misunderstandings.
Step 5: Set Boundaries
Be prepared to reiterate your stance respectfully but firmly if your manager insists you take on more work. Explain what you can realistically commit to and maintain your usual standards.
Step 6: Manage Going Forward
Schedule periodic check-ins to review your priorities and agree on a process for evaluating new requests before they're automatically assigned to you. Adjust your workload management approach as needed for long-term sustainability.
Examples
To illustrate the practical application of these principles, let's explore two contrasting conversation scenarios that demonstrate the impact of open communication on workload management. These examples will show how different approaches to communication can lead to vastly different outcomes, highlighting the importance of proactive and collaborative dialogue.
Example 1: The Collaborative Approach
Manager: "I know you're swamped, but I really need to hand off this additional client intake process to you this month. It's mission critical."
Employee: "I understand this is a priority, but I wanted to discuss bandwidth before agreeing. As you know, I'm currently leading three other process implementation projects that are highly visible and time-sensitive. Taking on more right now would risk dropping balls on those crucial initiatives."
Manager: "Those other projects have to remain top priorities, you're absolutely right. But we're committed to client services as well, so how can we make this work?"
Employee: "Perhaps we could explore a couple options. The Clark project has some flexibility - would it be possible to put that lower in the queue for now if I take over client intake? Or maybe Mike from the implementation team could take the lead on part of client intake while I focus my time on the higher priorities we've agreed to?"
Manager: "Those are fair suggestions. Let me check with the Clark team on potentially delaying that project by 4-6 weeks, and I'll discuss bringing in support from Mike as well. If we can work out that compromise, could you take over managing the overall client intake process within those constraints?"
Employee: "Yes, I could definitely take that on if we re-prioritize Clark and bring in reinforcements on intake. I'll begin preparing transition plans for Mike right away."
Manager: "Excellent, let's move forward that way. I'll follow up with confirmed changes to schedules and owners after aligning with those teams. As always, please let me know if anything becomes unmanageable."
Employee: "Will do, thanks for your flexibility in finding a solution that works for all our key priorities."
Analysis of Example 1
This first dialogue models an exemplary way for a manager and employee to navigate additional workload requests productively. Let's break down the effective strategies employed:
A Foundation of Mutual Respect
From the onset, the employee approaches the conversation with professionalism and objectivity by:
Assessing their current capacity realistically
Citing specific existing priorities that could be impacted
This lays an important foundation of mutual respect - the employee isn't just reflexively dismissing the request outright.
Proposing Collaborative Solutions
Crucially, the employee doesn't simply say "no" to taking on more work. Instead, they put reasonable compromise ideas on the table:
Delaying another time-flexible project
Bringing in extra support resources temporarily
This solution-minded mentality demonstrates the employee's aim to find a workable path forward, not just deflect the ask.
Managerial Receptiveness and Alignment
For their part, the manager laudably leans into the employee's suggestions rather than shooting them down. They:
Commit to exploring those proposed ideas further
Aim to find a compromise that works for all priorities
Align on interim next steps with accountability
Leave the door open for adjusting the approach if needed
This openness to recalibrating and clearly communicating reinforces a spirit of teamwork toward a shared goal.
A Model of Professionalism and Pragmatism
From beginning to end, both parties stake out their positions reasonably while staying focused on pragmatic solutions:
Assessing realities openly and honestly
Brainstorming creative options for bandwidth
Committing to firm next steps and accountability
Example 2: Manager Dismisses Concerns and Steamrolls
Manager: "I need to hand off this new client intake process to you this month. It's a top priority so I don't have any flexibility on the timeline."
Employee: "I appreciate you looping me in, but I wanted to discuss bandwidth before agreeing to take this on. With the three other critical projects I'm leading, adding more to my plate risks dropping balls and impacting our committed deliverables."
Manager: "Those other initiatives are important, but client services is our lifeblood. You have to find a way to get this intake piece done along with your existing work."
Employee: "I understand the importance, but realistically I can't take on more without something giving. Perhaps we could explore delaying one of the other projects to free up my time?"
Manager: "No, those all need to stay on track. I don't have bandwidth amongst other teams to hand this off right now."
Employee: "What if we brought in someone else, even just temporarily, to support the client intake piece so I'm not overloaded trying to do it all?"
Manager: "We don't have spare resources for that. I need you to figure out how to make this work with your current capacity."
Employee: "I'll certainly try my best, but I want to reiterate that something is likely to slip if I'm stretched too thin. Are you willing to accept that risk?"
Manager: "I hear your concerns, but we don't have a choice here. The intake work has to happen now, so I need you to bundle up and make it a priority however you can across your other commitments. Let me know if you have any other suggestions, otherwise I'll plan on you owning intake effective immediately."
Employee: "...Okay, I'll do what I can to keep everything moving, but please don't hold me to the same standards or timelines if things start crashing into one another."
Analysis of Example 2
This second dialogue illustrates a manager taking an unproductive and inadvisable tactic when dealing with an employee's workload concerns. Let's examine the implications:
An Unnecessary Power Struggle
From the outset, the manager dismisses the employee's attempt to have an open discussion about bandwidth. Despite the employee proposing reasonable compromises like re-prioritizing a project or bringing in support resources, the manager barrels ahead inflexibly. This my-way-or-the-highway stance immediately establishes an unhelpful power dynamic.
A Lose-Lose Situation Emerges
By stonewalling every suggestion for a nuanced approach, the manager forces a predictable lose-lose outcome:
For the Employee
An unsustainably excessive workload
Likely excessive stress and burnout
Sub-par output across their commitments
For the Manager
A critical new initiative (client intake) won't receive the focused attention it deserves
Overall team output and morale suffers
Squandering Expertise and Demotivating Top Talent
The employee clearly has valuable perspective on their current capacity based on their deep understanding of all active priorities. Rather than collaborating with that informed viewpoint, the manager dismissively shuts down any productive discussion around smart prioritization or reasonable tradeoffs.
This dynamic disempowers employees from sharing their expertise freely. It sends the signal that constructive pushback will be ignored in favor of arbitrary directives. Top performers will inevitably become demotivated when their judgment is so blatantly overridden.
Violating Principles of Responsible Management
Fundamentally, forcibly overburdening an employee with no flexibility is irresponsible people management. Even if a rare, truly extraordinary situation arises that genuinely requires short-term overcommitment, that doesn't seem to be the situation here. The employee voices valid concerns about ongoing workload sustainability that should not be cavalierly ignored.
An effective leader should facilitate frank discussions about balancing important deliverables against realistic capacity and constraints. When this dialogue is productive, it allows for reasonable compromises that leave both parties aligned and set up for success.
By contrast, when a manager flatly refuses to even consider adjusting priorities or making temporary scope tradeoffs - despite the employee's logical arguments - they lose credibility. Such stubbornness defies basic operational pragmatism and priorities power over reality. That's a risky management approach that tends to undermine team effectiveness over the long run.
