Are You Overburdening Your Most Engaged Employees?SKIP TO CONTENTHarvard Business Review LogoHarvard Business Review LogoDelegating|Are You Overburdening Your Most Engaged Employees?SubscribeSign InLatestMagazineTopicsPodcastsStoreReading ListsData & VisualsCase SelectionsHBR ExecutiveSearch hbr.orgSubscribeLatestPodcastsThe MagazineStoreWebinarsNewslettersAll TopicsReading ListsData & VisualsCase SelectionsHBR ExecutiveMy LibraryAccount SettingsSign InExplore HBRLatestThe MagazinePodcastsStoreWebinarsNewslettersPopular TopicsManaging YourselfLeadershipStrategyManaging TeamsGenderInnovationWork-life BalanceAll TopicsFor SubscribersReading ListsData & VisualsCase SelectionsHBR ExecutiveSubscribeMy AccountMy LibraryTopic FeedsOrdersAccount SettingsEmail PreferencesSign InHarvard Business Review LogoDelegatingAre You Overburdening Your Most Engaged Employees? by Sangah Bae and Kaitlin WoolleyMarch 27, 2026French Anderson Ltd/StocksyPostPostShareSavePrintSummary.   Leer en españolLer em portuguêsPostPostShareSavePrintEngaged employees provide organizations with a valuable competitive advantage. Research consistently shows they are more productive and significantly less likely to leave than less engaged colleagues. It’s why organizations invest so heavily in building an engaged workforce.Sangah Bae is an Assistant Professor of Management and Organizational Development at the D’Amore–McKim School of Business, Northeastern University. She studies how people use and misuse social cues in work contexts.Kaitlin Woolley is a Professor of Marketing at the SC Johnson College of Business at Cornell University. She studies the psychological processes underlying consumer motivation and decision making to help people better achieve their goals.PostPostShareSavePrintRead more on Delegating or related topics Managing people, Managing employees, Managerial behavior, Management skills and Leadership and managing peoplePartner CenterStart my subscription!Explore HBRThe LatestAll TopicsMagazine ArchiveReading ListsCase SelectionsHBR ExecutivePodcastsWebinarsData & VisualsMy LibraryNewslettersHBR PressHBR StoreArticle ReprintsBooksCasesCollectionsMagazine IssuesHBR Guide SeriesHBR 20-Minute ManagersHBR Emotional Intelligence SeriesHBR Must ReadsToolsAbout HBRContact UsAdvertise with UsInformation for Booksellers/RetailersMastheadGlobal EditionsMedia InquiriesGuidelines for AuthorsHBR Analytic ServicesCopyright PermissionsAccessibilityDigital AccessibilityManage My AccountMy LibraryTopic FeedsOrdersAccount SettingsEmail PreferencesHelp CenterContact Customer ServiceExplore HBRThe LatestAll TopicsMagazine ArchiveReading ListsCase SelectionsHBR ExecutivePodcastsWebinarsData & VisualsMy LibraryNewslettersHBR PressHBR StoreArticle ReprintsBooksCasesCollectionsMagazine IssuesHBR Guide SeriesHBR 20-Minute ManagersHBR Emotional Intelligence SeriesHBR Must ReadsToolsAbout HBRContact UsAdvertise with UsInformation for Booksellers/RetailersMastheadGlobal EditionsMedia InquiriesGuidelines for AuthorsHBR Analytic ServicesCopyright PermissionsAccessibilityDigital AccessibilityManage My AccountMy LibraryTopic FeedsOrdersAccount SettingsEmail PreferencesHelp CenterContact Customer ServiceFollow HBRFacebookX Corp.LinkedInInstagramYour NewsreaderHarvard Business Review LogoAbout UsCareersPrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyCopyright InformationTrademark PolicyTerms of UseHarvard Business Publishing:Higher EducationCorporate LearningHarvard Business ReviewHarvard Business SchoolCopyright ©2026 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. Harvard Business Publishing is an affiliate of Harvard Business School.

Sangah Bae and Kaitlin Woolley’s article, “Are You Overburdening Your Most Engaged Employees?” examines a critical paradox within organizational management: the intense investment in cultivating employee engagement often inadvertently leads to overburdening those individuals who are already most committed and productive. The core argument centers on the prevailing assumption that highly engaged employees will readily take on additional responsibilities, a pattern that, according to the authors’ research, can ultimately be detrimental to both the employee’s well-being and the organization’s long-term goals. The piece strategically leverages existing research demonstrating the significant advantages – increased productivity and reduced attrition – that engaged employees bring to an organization, thereby establishing the rationale for prioritizing engagement initiatives.

The authors elaborate on the psychological dynamics at play, suggesting that engagement isn’t simply a matter of enthusiasm but rather a deeply rooted motivation and sense of purpose. Highly engaged employees, fueled by this intrinsic drive, often feel a personal obligation to contribute beyond their defined roles. However, this inclination, without proper management and strategic delegation, can quickly morph into a burden. Bae and Woolley highlight that offering more work to already engaged employees does not necessarily equate to increased output; in fact, it can lead to burnout, decreased innovation, and ultimately, a decline in overall effectiveness. The article posits that this phenomenon arises because engagement, in itself, does not inherently translate to a limitless capacity for work or a disregard for work-life balance.

The authors contextualize their findings through the lens of the employee's existing psychological state. They contend that assigning additional tasks to engaged individuals without considering their existing workload, stress levels, or preferred working styles can be perceived as a lack of trust and respect. This perceived mistrust can erode the very foundation of engagement, transforming what was once a positive commitment into a source of frustration and resentment. Furthermore, the article implicitly acknowledges the importance of understanding the underlying motivations of these individuals. Those who are inherently driven to excel will frequently seek opportunities to contribute, but this drive can be unsustainable if not carefully managed and appropriately channeled.

Bae and Woolley’s research specifically targets the management practices that exacerbate this problem. They implicitly critique a common management approach that assumes engagement automatically equates to a willingness to absorb increased workloads, neglecting the critical need for strategic delegation and workload distribution. The article doesn’t advocate for diminishing the value of engaged employees but rather for a more nuanced and thoughtful approach to leadership. The authors suggest that leaders should actively solicit input on employee workloads, understand individual preferences for task types and levels of involvement, and prioritize tasks based on strategic importance rather than simply assuming that highly engaged employees are always the best choice for additional assignments. Essentially, it emphasizes the need for attentive management and a recognition that engagement, while a powerful asset, requires cultivation and support, not just an open invitation for additional responsibilities. The piece concludes by reinforcing the importance of recognizing that maintaining a highly engaged workforce is not simply about assigning tasks but about creating an environment where individuals can thrive and contribute effectively, sustained by a balance of challenge and support.