The problem is not work itself. The problem is catching every task that escapes through broken boundaries.
Today was one of those days when random work kept flying at me.
For onboarding, I had already planned the morning training curriculum. The afternoon handover was supposed to happen on the shop-floor side. But the only person who could handle it suddenly had to attend a meeting.
Then came the request:
Can you watch them for the whole day instead?
Annoying.
In the past, I might have absorbed it. I would have thought, “They are in trouble,” “The newcomer will be stuck,” or “It is faster if I just do it.”
But this time, I did something different.
First, I asked, “What about the floor leader?” In other words, I checked the proper owner of the task.
Then I spoke with the leader. I made it clear that I could not cover the entire afternoon. I could teach what I was able to teach, for about one or two hours at most. After that, the person could follow a senior employee, and the parts already turned into video training could be handled through the video materials.
That became the agreed plan.
In other words, I did not absorb the whole thing.
I did not stop the workflow. But I also did not allow myself to become the person who gets trapped for the entire day.
That distinction mattered.
On the same day, someone else asked me to handle a kiosk or PC issue because they had a meeting and could not go. I refused that too.
I do not know enough to judge this. Please contact the responsible department.
That was the right response.
If I had touched the machine, I might have become the person responsible for it. If it did not get fixed, the questions would come back to me: “Since when?” “Who touched it?” “What did you do?” Hardware or system issues outside my scope are dangerous to absorb through goodwill.
Today had too many of these moments.
Someone is in trouble. The owner is missing. I happen to be nearby. So the task flies toward me.
I have started calling this kind of workplace a hole-ridden zoo.
There are holes in ownership, responsibility, backup plans, and procedures. Tasks escape through those holes like animals. Then the person who notices, the person who cannot say no, or the person who can somehow process things becomes the one who catches them.
If this continues, that person becomes the convenient person.
So what is needed is not more endurance.
What is needed is a fence.
That is the theme here:
Domain Expansion: Sakusaku Panda.
You create a boundary field around your work.
You do not reject everything. You cooperate when cooperation is necessary. But you stop catching every escaped task with your bare hands.
You place fences.
That is Sakusaku Panda.
There is a name for this: illegitimate tasks
This feeling is not merely selfishness.
In occupational psychology, these tasks are sometimes called illegitimate tasks.
Broadly speaking, an illegitimate task is a task that makes you think, “Should I really be the one doing this?” Research often divides them into two types.
The first is unreasonable tasks: tasks assigned outside one’s role, status, expertise, or authority.
The second is unnecessary tasks: tasks that are pointless, avoidable, or created by poor organizational systems.
What makes illegitimate tasks so draining is not always difficulty. In many cases, the task itself is simple.
The real problem is the message attached to the task:
Your time can be treated lightly.
Your expertise does not need to be respected.
It does not matter if this creates trouble for you.
That is why it creates anger.
The task is not painful because it is heavy.
It is painful because it feels disrespectful.
Research treats illegitimate tasks as a stressor distinct from simple workload. Such tasks can threaten role identity and professional self-respect, and studies have linked them to stress, burnout, lower job satisfaction, and related outcomes.[^1][^2][^3]
So the irritation of “Why is this coming to me?” is not just emotional noise. It is structural.
What is a hole-ridden zoo?
A hole-ridden zoo is a workplace where responsibility boundaries are broken.
A real zoo has fences.
Each animal has a place. Someone is responsible for care. Feeding times exist. If an animal escapes, there is a procedure.
Workplaces should have similar structures.
But in reality, boundaries often become vague.
Typical holes look like this:
- Only one person can handle a task.
- When that person goes into a meeting, there is no backup.
- People skip the floor leader and ask whoever is nearby.
- Requests happen verbally, so responsibility does not remain visible.
- The person who can handle things absorbs the work again and again.
- Someone comments afterward with idealistic criticism.
- But the person who actually watches the situation or does the work does not increase.
In this environment, tasks keep escaping.
The frustrating part is that many escaped tasks look small.
Can you watch this for an hour?
Can you check this PC quickly?
Can you scan this?
Do not let the new person do unrelated work.
But make sure the training is done properly.
I have a meeting, so can you handle it?
Each one is small.
But if you absorb them all, your entire day dies.
And worse, once you absorb a task, you start to look like its owner.
If you catch the animal once, people put it in your cage next time.
That is how convenient-person status is created.
What is Domain Expansion: Sakusaku Panda?
Domain Expansion: Sakusaku Panda is the practice of clarifying ownership, time limits, decision authority, and return routes before a task enters your hands.
The name is dramatic, but the actual method is simple.
When work flies at you, do not immediately absorb it.
Place a fence first.
There are four fences.
1. The ownership fence
Whose task is this?
Can I judge it? Is there a responsible department? Is there a floor leader?
In today’s onboarding case, asking “What about the floor leader?” was an ownership fence.
In the PC issue case, saying “Please contact the responsible department” was also an ownership fence.
2. The time fence
Even if you cooperate, how far will you go?
Are you covering the whole day? One or two hours? Just the explanation? Will it switch to shadowing?
If this is vague, “just a little” becomes the entire afternoon.
Saying this matters:
I can cover about one or two hours. After that, the floor side needs to handle it.
That stops the absorption.
3. The decision fence
Is this a task where you make decisions, or only a routine action?
Even scanning and filing need care when sensitive documents are involved.
The key is to separate the action from the judgment. The person may scan, but they should not decide content. The storage location, document handling, and final checker should be clear.
The point is not “It is simple, so anything goes.”
The point is “Who owns the judgment?”
4. The record fence
If you fight verbally, the conversation branches endlessly.
“Still…”
“But training should…”
“Normally…”
“You did it last time…”
That becomes exhausting.
So if needed, write it in chat.
The onboarding training has already been observed multiple times, and the procedure, script, and video materials have been provided.
Today, instead of adding another observation round, we plan to do a full run-through using the script, with me acting as the listener.
During the open time in the morning, I asked them to do a simple routine scanning task in a way that did not interfere with training.
The scanning did not involve content judgment, and the storage location and original documents will be checked by me.
Going forward, I will separate training time and support-task time more clearly so they do not appear mixed.
That is enough.
You do not need to win verbally.
You just need to place the fence.
The goal is not to refuse everything. The goal is to avoid becoming the convenient person.
This is the important part.
Sakusaku Panda is not about refusing all work.
It is the opposite.
You still cooperate where cooperation makes sense.
In the onboarding case, I did not reject the situation completely. I checked with the leader. I agreed to teach what I could. I limited the time to one or two hours. I used video materials. I redirected the remaining time to shadowing.
The workflow did not stop.
But I did not absorb the whole afternoon.
That is the core distinction.
Cooperation and convenient-person absorption are different.
Cooperation has purpose, scope, time, and responsibility.
Convenient-person absorption has vague purpose, vague scope, vague time, and vague responsibility.
Sakusaku Panda turns the latter into the former.
A simple three-part classification
When work flies toward you, divide it into three categories.
| Type | Condition | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Legitimate task | It fits your role, responsibility, and outcomes | Do it normally |
| Conditional cooperation | It is not your core responsibility, but limited cooperation makes sense | Help with clear limits |
| Task to return | Outside your scope, impossible to judge, owner unclear, or likely to become endless absorption | Return it to the owner or department |
In today’s case, the morning onboarding curriculum was close to a legitimate task.
Absorbing the entire afternoon because the floor side lost its backup was close to a task to return.
Helping for one or two hours became conditional cooperation.
The kiosk or PC issue was outside scope and should be returned.
This classification reduces the habit of “I was asked, so I must do it.”
When a request arrives, ask:
Is this legitimate?
Is this conditional cooperation?
Or is this an animal escaping through a broken fence?
If it is an escaped animal, do not catch it with your bare hands.
Place a fence.
Useful chat templates
Returning an out-of-scope issue
Sorry, I cannot judge this on my side. Please check with the responsible department.
When someone asks you to handle something because they are in a meeting
I also have my assigned work, so I cannot take continuous responsibility for this.
Please check directly with the responsible department or the floor leader.
Helping with a time limit
I can explain the parts I know, but I cannot cover the entire afternoon.
I can help for about one or two hours. After that, please have the floor side handle it.
When someone criticizes afterward
Let me share the context.
For this matter, I separated the training, task, and confirmation time.
The routine work was assigned only within time that did not interfere with training, and any part requiring judgment will be checked by me.
Going forward, I will continue to separate training time and support-task time so they do not appear mixed.
When a verbal discussion may get messy
To avoid misunderstanding, I will organize the points and share them in chat.
This is strong.
Do not fight emotionally on the spot.
Write it down and place the fence.
Some days require disappearing
At one point today, I thought, “I should disappear.”
That was the right move.
Some days are designed to attract escaped tasks.
Someone goes into a meeting. An owner is absent. A sudden issue appears. Newcomer support is happening. A PC breaks. The floor gets stuck.
On those days, becoming the goodwill receiver means losing.
Reduce your visibility.
Return tasks that are not yours.
Give only minimal responses.
Leave records in chat.
Do not talk for too long.
This is not running away.
It is protecting the boundary of your responsibility.
The essence of Sakusaku Panda
The essence of Sakusaku Panda is not becoming cold.
It is preventing your goodwill from being consumed by broken systems.
People who are kind, fast, structured, capable, and easy to talk to are especially at risk in a hole-ridden zoo.
Why?
Because they can catch the escaped animals.
The person who can catch them ends up catching them.
Because someone catches them, the holes remain unfixed.
Because the holes remain unfixed, more tasks escape.
To stop the loop, you must stop catching everything.
Instead, place fences.
Whose scope is this?
I can cover up to this point.
After that, please have the floor side handle it.
I cannot judge this, so please contact the responsible department.
To avoid misalignment, I will share the context in chat.
These lines change a lot.
You are not refusing work.
You are designing the flow of work.
You stop being the convenient person and start becoming the person who designs boundaries.
That is Domain Expansion: Sakusaku Panda.
Conclusion
Work does not drain people only because there is too much of it.
Work becomes draining when the answer to “Why am I the one doing this?” is unclear.
If a task makes you feel that your time is being treated lightly, your expertise is not respected, or you are being used because you happen to be nearby, it can easily become an illegitimate task.
A workplace where these tasks appear frequently is a hole-ridden zoo.
So the answer is not more endurance.
The answer is fences.
Ownership fences.
Time fences.
Decision fences.
Record fences.
Do not catch everything.
Cooperate where needed.
Set limits.
Return tasks to the owner.
Leave records in chat.
Disappear on days when too much is flying around.
That is how you expand a boundary field around your work.
Domain Expansion: Sakusaku Panda.
It is not a technique for becoming cold at work.
It is a technique for protecting your goodwill and expertise from being eaten by a broken system.
References
[^1]: Semmer, N. K., et al. (2015). Illegitimate tasks as a source of work stress. Work & Stress / PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4396521/
[^2]: Omansky, R., Eatough, E. M., & Fila, M. J. (2016). Illegitimate Tasks as an Impediment to Job Satisfaction and Intrinsic Motivation. Frontiers in Psychology. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01818/full
[^3]: Basińska, B. A., et al. (2023). Psychometric properties of the Bern illegitimate tasks scale using classical test and item response theories. Scientific Reports. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-34006-0
[^4]: Ding, H., et al. (2023). Illegitimate tasks: A systematic literature review and agenda for future research. Work & Stress. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02678373.2022.2148308
