The theatre of work: When employees act busy to appear useful

In offices across the globe, a curious performance unfolds daily. Employees scroll through documents, toggle between spreadsheets, attend endless meetings and dispatch just enough emails to appear industrious. Yet beneath this flurry of activity lies an uncomfortable truth: many have emotionally withdrawn from their roles whilst maintaining the veneer of engagement. They have mastered what human resources professionals increasingly recognise as “task masking”—a term that may be novel, but describes a challenge as established as organisational life itself.

Task masking refers to the practice whereby capable professionals simulate productivity without genuine engagement in their work’s purpose. They appear occupied but are essentially performing—not producing.

“See, we live in a society that thrives on external validation,” explains Rishav Dev, head -talent acquisition, Century Plywoods. “From our social media habits to our office behaviours, we’re conditioned to seek approval.” This validation-seeking behaviour follows workers through office doors, creating pressure to display perpetual busyness lest one be judged as uncommitted.

“Even if an employee finishes their tasks and takes time to pursue a learning course or explore a passion such as photography, colleagues and managers often judge them harshly.”

Rishav Dev, head -talent acquisition, Century Plywoods

Much of this behaviour stems from deeply rooted insecurity. Dev notes, “Even if an employee finishes their tasks and takes time to pursue a learning course or explore a passion such as photography, colleagues and managers often judge them harshly.” This creates an environment where genuine productivity is overshadowed by performative diligence.

The consequence is perverse: professionals expending more energy appearing busy than being effective. They manufacture focus, schedule unnecessary meetings or engage in inefficient multitasking simply to project commitment. The outcome extends beyond wasted effort to become a catalyst for burnout, disillusionment and, eventually, attrition.

“Line managers must take ownership. Their job is not to do the work but to enable others to do it well.”

Nihar Ghosh, senior HR leader

This performance culture frequently flourishes under taskmaster-style leadership—supervisors who prize activity over outcomes. Seasoned HR leader Nihar Ghosh categorises such managers distinctly: “Taskmasters are of two kinds: the parasites, who cling on with no real contribution, and the disenchanted performers, who once had potential but are now pretending to care.”

It is this second category—talented individuals who have disengaged—that represents the greater organisational concern. These are not incompetent workers but rather capable professionals who have disconnected due to insufficient challenge, unclear career progression or lack of recognition. “They’re waiting it out,” Ghosh observes, “pretending to work until something better comes along.”

Consider the trajectory: an employee enters an organisation full of enthusiasm, only to find their role becoming increasingly routine. Initial excitement transforms into monotony, and monotony into apathy, particularly when advancement paths remain obscure and contributions go unacknowledged.

This disengagement rarely manifests as explicit conflict or immediate resignation. More commonly, it settles in gradually and subtly. The employee begins performing at minimally acceptable levels, avoiding negative attention whilst their genuine potential remains untapped.

Under these circumstances, conventional performance management proves inadequate. What organisations require is psychological insight and more substantive conversations. Ghosh emphasises that human resources departments cannot address this challenge in isolation: “Line managers must take ownership. Their job is not to do the work but to enable others to do it well.” Managers must develop the capacity to identify disengagement indicators, comprehend underlying causes—whether monotony, insufficient recognition or toxic workplace dynamics—and collaborate with HR to reinvigorate their teams.

Task masking should not be confused with indolence; it is a survival strategy. In environments where time visibly spent is misinterpreted as effort, and physical presence is rewarded above meaningful contributions, employees naturally adapt to prevailing expectations. They participate in the unspoken ritual: arriving early, remaining online late, responding instantly to messages and attending every meeting—whilst emotionally withdrawing.

This behaviour creates cascading effects. Even high performers eventually question their dedication: “Why should I stretch when my effort is indistinguishable from someone just coasting through?” This sentiment, Ghosh cautions, is how mediocrity permeates organisations—when they fail to differentiate between authentic contributors and those merely playing their parts.

Dev identifies cultural insecurity as task masking’s foundation: “We’ve created workplaces where joy, exploration, and learning are suspect. Even if you complete your work early and want to learn cooking or photography or take a break, you’ll be judged.”

Rather than celebrating initiative and individuality, many workplaces continue promoting rigid, hustle-oriented models. Employees face expectations to remain perpetually engaged, regardless of workflow realities. Dev shares his contrasting approach: “I encourage my team to finish their work, and then do whatever makes them happy—watch a documentary, pick up a new course, take a break.” He adds, “Work should be enjoyable, not a punishment. If someone feels at home in the office, that’s when they truly connect.”

Yet such openness remains exceptional. The prevailing tendency is to scrutinise employees who deviate from performative norms—therein lies the fundamental challenge.

While HR possesses diagnostic capabilities to identify these patterns, Ghosh maintains that meaningful intervention belongs to line managers: “Managing performance is not HR’s job. It is the only job of a manager.” Managers must abandon assumptions and initiate conversations. When capable employees disengage, the appropriate response is investigative rather than punitive. Are they understimulated? Do they feel undervalued? Are career paths unclear? These questions can rekindle engagement.

If monotony emerges as the primary issue, role redesign might be necessary. If recognition is lacking, formal appreciation systems could help. If toxicity exists, its source requires identification and targeted intervention.

Cultivating psychological safety enables organisations to access employees’ authentic thoughts and emotions, driving deeper engagement and innovation. When professionals feel secure enough to acknowledge struggles or stagnation, it creates space for honest communication and timely support.

A fundamental shift in performance measurement is equally essential. “Organisations must move away from traditional metrics such as hours logged or sheer activity levels and instead focus on outcomes, creativity, and value delivered,” Dev emphasises. When employees complete deliverables efficiently and redirect remaining capacity toward personal or professional development, this should elicit celebration rather than suspicion.

Task masking is not isolated behaviour—it signals cultural priorities that favour appearance over impact, and compliance over creativity. Addressing it requires managers to evolve from commanders to coaches, engaging in meaningful dialogue, identifying aspirations, offering challenges and providing constructive feedback to reignite disengaged talent’s potential.