More Responsibility, or Just More Work?

“Stretch” is a word that comes up quite often when we talk about developing people at work. We might give someone a bigger piece of work, involve them in something they have not done before, or encourage them to take more ownership. Those experiences can build confidence, capability and a sense of genuine progress. But I sometimes wonder whether we are always clear about the difference between development and simply giving someone more to carry.

It is something I have thought about in different forms for quite a long time. Earlier in my career, working in further education, “stretch and challenge” was a familiar part of the language around teaching and learning. The context is different now, but I recognise something similar in leadership. As line managers, we also create opportunities for people to take greater ownership, try something unfamiliar or develop new capabilities. I have generally been drawn to doing that. What interests me is the point at which that additional responsibility becomes genuinely enriching rather than simply heavier.

Frederick Herzberg’s (1959, 2003) work on motivation provides one useful way of thinking about this. Herzberg distinguished between factors that help prevent dissatisfaction and the things that can create more positive motivation, such as achievement, recognition, responsibility and the nature of the work itself. One of the ideas associated with this is the vertical loading of roles. Rather than simply adding more tasks, job enrichment involves increasing things such as responsibility, autonomy, learning and meaningful involvement.

That distinction feels important because more work and richer work are not necessarily the same thing.

It can be tempting to describe additional workload as a development opportunity. Sometimes it genuinely is. A new challenge can create space for someone to learn, build confidence and discover capability they did not know they had. At other times, though, the person may simply be doing more work without any greater autonomy, clarity or sense of why it matters. In those circumstances, what looks like stretch from one perspective may feel more like strain from another.

There is another complication too. What feels motivating to one person may not feel motivating to someone else. Chung and Ross (1977) challenged the assumption that job enrichment will always have a positive effect, suggesting that for some people additional responsibility and pressure can actually be counterproductive. Their work points to the importance of considering both the technical and psychological readiness of the individual, rather than assuming that more autonomy or challenge will automatically help them grow. Some people may welcome greater responsibility, while others may value stability, predictability or the opportunity to become highly capable within the role they already have. That seems important because development can very easily become something we do to people rather than something we shape with them.

Perhaps the question, then, is not simply, “How can I stretch this person?” but “What does growth look like for this person?”

There is a subtle but important difference between the two. The first starts with the leader’s view of what development should look like. The second starts with the individual. It asks us to understand what they want to learn, what they feel ready for and what greater responsibility might mean to them, rather than assuming that our idea of progress should automatically become theirs.

That individual focus also connects to another part of the literature I found interesting. Sluss, Van Dick and Thompson (2011) describe organisational roles as an important link between the individual and the wider organisation, helping people make sense of what they are there to do and how they fit into something larger. Roles can provide clarity and stability, while still leaving room for people to interpret, shape and grow within them.

That makes the design of the role itself important. A role profile is more than an administrative document or a list of tasks. At its best, it can help create clarity about purpose, responsibility and contribution, while leaving enough space for judgement, ownership and development. If we are serious about helping people grow, then the way roles are designed, described and discussed may matter just as much as the additional opportunities we place around them.

There is clearly a balance here. Development will not always feel comfortable, and perhaps it should not. Learning something genuinely new can involve uncertainty, mistakes and moments of doubt. But discomfort on its own is not necessarily evidence of growth. The challenge for leaders may be to understand the individual, the role and the environment around them well enough to create the conditions in which challenge can become genuinely developmental.

That might mean greater responsibility or autonomy. It might mean clearer expectations, better support, the opportunity to practise something new, or simply more space to shape a role around someone’s strengths and aspirations. The answer is unlikely to be protecting people from every difficult experience. But neither is it assuming that the best route to growth is simply to keep adding more.

What I keep coming back to is the difference between increasing someone’s load and creating the conditions for them to increase their capacity. One makes the role heavier. The other, at its best, can help someone build confidence and capability, and move towards more of their potential.

Perhaps that is the question underneath all of this: not simply whether someone is being stretched, but what that stretch is actually creating.

When we say we are developing someone, are we helping to create the conditions in which they can grow, or are we simply asking them to carry more?

Further reading

• Chung, K. H., & Ross, M. F. (1977). Differences in Motivational Properties between Job Enlargement and Job Enrichment. The Academy of Management Review, 113–122.

• Herzberg, F. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley.

• Herzberg, F. (2003). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review, 87–141.

• Sluss, D. M., Van Dick, R., & Thompson, B. S. (2011). Role Theory in Organizations: A Relational Perspective. In APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1: Building and Developing the Organization (pp. 505–534).