Official job description
Source: fictional scenario intake, not a real employment contract.
A job description records what can be named. A workweek reveals what is carried. Observe a fictional organization, trace hidden dependencies, compare structural changes, and leave with a rewritten job description.
Fictional case · Transparent model · No tracking · Research-linked reading room
A missing line in a job description can still be an essential line in the institution.
These are editorial categories for the exercise, not universal scientific classifications. A task's visibility depends on the context: see Star and Strauss (1999) in the reading room.
You are reviewing an organization, not judging a worker. Select a fictional case or name another role; every detail stays in this browser.
The document is not a lie. It is incomplete. Its omissions have operational consequences.
Research is a conversation, not a rubber stamp. Each entry identifies a useful question and a reason not to overclaim.
Start with Star & Strauss (what becomes visible), move to Kaplan and Babcock (allocation and recognition), then read ILO work-design guidance (what institutions can change).
Take the field guide ↓Showing all 10 research sources.
Star & Strauss (1999)
Read it for: Visibility is a negotiated way of representing work; creating a record changes what counts.
Scope check: No task is intrinsically invisible in every context; the paper does not calibrate this simulator.
Open original publication ↗Kaplan, Slonim-Franco & Lifshitz (2024)
Read it for: Mixed-methods research explicitly examines unseen physical care, emotional labor, administration and teamwork in relation to wages.
Scope check: The Israeli sample and observational analysis do not establish universal wage effects or justify invented scores.
Open original publication ↗Babcock, Recalde, Vesterlund & Weingart (2017)
Read it for: Shows why low-promotability requests and who receives them can matter to a workplace.
Scope check: Do not infer who in a fictional team would do this work from identity or demographic traits.
Open original publication ↗Gagné & Deci (2005)
Read it for: Separates autonomy-supporting motivation from externally pressured compliance.
Scope check: Recognizing work is not automatically autonomy-supportive; compensation and monitoring can coexist.
Open original publication ↗Hackman & Oldham (1976)
Read it for: Classic job-design research links task design and psychological experiences of work.
Scope check: Its model is not a complete theory of invisible work or modern organizational inequality.
Open original publication ↗Edmondson (1999)
Read it for: Asks whether teams can surface problems and learn without making every admission costly.
Scope check: Do not equate this simulator’s invented “trust index” with psychological safety research measures.
Open original publication ↗ILO — Addati, Cattaneo, Esquivel & Valarino (2018)
Read it for: Examines paid and unpaid care work and the institutional arrangements surrounding it.
Scope check: Its broad care-economy framing does not imply every support task is paid employment.
Open original publication ↗ILO — Razavi et al. (2024)
Read it for: The user-supplied working paper situates unpaid care and employment inequality within social protection design.
Scope check: This paper concerns gender-responsive social protection; it is not solely a workplace invisible-labor study.
Open original publication ↗International Labour Organization (2026)
Read it for: Shifts attention from worker resilience alone to demands, clarity, control and fair organizational systems.
Scope check: Do not use simulated risk indices as a health assessment or compliance audit.
Open original publication ↗International Labour Organization (2022)
Read it for: Summarizes organizational risks such as workload, poor role definition and limited job control.
Scope check: This is general guidance, not a diagnostic protocol for a fictional team.
Open original publication ↗The labels describe how to read these resources, not evidence quality rankings. Research findings apply within their methods, context and limitations.
It is work that an organization depends on but does not consistently represent in job descriptions, recognition or allocation processes. Context matters: the same task can be visible in one workplace and overlooked in another.
Not by itself. Documentation may improve acknowledgment, but also enable surveillance, more reporting, and pressure. Structural changes may need to alter demand, authority, staffing and compensation.
No. They are deterministic editorial indices designed to illustrate mechanisms. They are not psychometric measures, health assessments or predictions about real organizations.
Use the questions as a discussion scaffold, not an evaluation system. Participation, consent, workload realism, and protection from retaliation matter. Do not collect personal disclosures or treat the fictional numerical rules as evidence.
No. The interactive case runs in the browser and does not transmit case content. Nothing is uploaded. File exports and printing occur only when you choose them.
All scenarios, people and events are invented. Four neutral role labels are used (Lead, Practitioner, Coordinator, Support); no protected characteristics are assigned or inferred. A seed hashes to a reproducible ordering of daily tasks; its value has no predictive meaning. Each task has a category, weight, essentiality, original owner and default credit recipient.
Illustrative indices are editorial. Four fictional roles each have a small capacity budget; tasks carry integer load units. On each observed day, reassignment changes role load or attribution, with an explicit before-and-after indicator trace. Each recorded allocation revision also adds short-term model friction, never a claim of real-world causal magnitude. Overload and unassigned essential tasks raise the invented failure-risk index. Formal visibility improves the invented pay-visibility index but raises monitoring pressure. No index is a validated instrument.
Each ownership or credit reassignment is recorded as one illustrative administrative transaction. The indices include a one-point short-term capacity and trust cost, one-point pay-allocation traceability increase, and one-point handoff risk increase. Other effects depend on load, visibility, unassigned work and attribution. These editorial coefficients are not estimates of real organizations.
The structural hearing compares five counterfactual changes to the same observed ten tasks. Rotation redistributes existing load; demand reduction removes select negotiable tasks; compensation increases formal recognition without creating capacity; authority reduces selected coordination or repair weights; documentation increases traceability but not total demand. Compare maximum load as well as total work so a apparent reform cannot hide displaced burden.
Research informed the questions, not the formulas. A causal narrative in this toy cannot validate an organizational intervention. No workplace or demographic inference is produced. This site transmits no case text, runs without a server or analytics, and retains nothing after refresh; exporting or printing is an explicit user choice.
Less unlisted work can mean the tasks were documented, not that anyone worked less. Lower peak role load can mean the demand moved to another role, not that the system became lighter. The comparison ledger separates total demand, unlisted demand, and concentrated load. That separation is the lesson.
Research titles, author names and links are attributed. The nine activity categories and every fictional incident are new editorial writing; they are not quotations or extracted datasets. COMPLETE dossier links are only records of related projects unless separately verified as live.
Download the full methods worksheet and teaching guide (PDF) ↓