[Atrine]

> I said no to low-impact tasks.

This oversimplification is terrible advice.

I've seen many people refuse "low impact" work that's just flat out required for things to operate. Talking about keeping systems stable, working on tickets while they are on-call, and generally doing things that make work easily transferrable to others. These people that "refuse low impact work" end up being terrible teammates a lot of the time.

[teh_klev]

> working on tickets while they are on-call

That's why they call it "on-call", you only work if you get the call. If you're on-call and being expected to work on unrelated tickets then you're now adding many hours/days to your working week, and somewhere near and just over the horizon is burnout town.

[beacon294]

That can be an organizational problem, reliability should be impact.

[maximinus_thrax]

> people that "refuse low impact work" end up being terrible teammates a lot of the time.

yes, but there's a high chance they'll climb the corporate ladder way faster, while not caring about being great teammates because this is not a requirement for advancement. Actually, dumping this on someone else's lap [0] should be on the list of things to do if you want to move up from loser to sociopath [1].

[0] https://hedgehoglibrarian.com/2023/08/14/executive-function-...

[1] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...