I think we need to talk about what’s really happening with that recent email asking federal workers to describe their duties. This isn’t actually about getting useful information or improving how things work.
The whole thing feels like a setup to me. When you make employees write down what they do in just a few bullet points, you’re stripping away all the important details that show why their work matters. Then later someone can look at those short descriptions and say “this person doesn’t seem essential.”
Why This Approach Doesn’t Work
No matter how you respond, it can be twisted. Write too little and they’ll say you’re not doing enough. Write too much and they’ll claim you’re wasting resources. It’s designed so you can’t win.
What I Think Is Really Going On
Testing who gets scared and who fights back
Making people feel uncertain about their jobs
Getting workers used to jumping through hoops
Building lists for future workforce changes
My Suggestions
Keep records of everything you actually do at work. Don’t quit if things get tough because that’s probably what they want. If you have to respond to requests like this, stick to your official job description and don’t give them extra ammunition.
Anyone else seeing this pattern? I’m worried this is just the beginning of bigger changes coming to federal employment.
You’re absolutely right about that pattern - this is exactly why you need automation.
I’ve watched this same playbook in corporate restructuring. They never actually want to understand your role when they ask for documentation. They’re just building a paper trail for decisions they’ve already made.
Here’s what I’d add: Start automating your work documentation right now. Set up systems that track your daily tasks, completed projects, and impact metrics automatically. When they come asking, you’ll have real data instead of scrambling to remember what you did.
Automated tracking captures everything objectively - no bias, no forgetting crucial details when you’re stressed. They want bullet points? You’ve got comprehensive records showing actual value.
I’d also automate monitoring policy changes and communication patterns. Set alerts for new directives and organizational shifts. Stay ahead of what’s coming instead of reacting after it hits.
Build these systems before you need them. Once the pressure starts, it’s too late for proper documentation workflows.
For federal workers facing this uncertainty, automated systems running in the background give you protection and peace of mind. Focus on your actual work while automation handles the documentation that might save your job.
Latenode makes setting up these protective workflows really straightforward, even if you’re not technical: https://latenode.com
I’ve been in government contracting for over a decade, and this documentation request isn’t new or sinister. We get some version of this every few years - sometimes it’s genuine process improvement, sometimes budget justification, sometimes prep work for restructuring. Here’s what I learned: these exercises reveal management priorities more than employee performance. I’ve watched valuable programs get axed because they couldn’t explain their impact well, while crappy ones survived because they presented better. What worries me isn’t the request itself - it’s the timing and scope. If this is hitting multiple agencies at once, there’s coordination happening above. When these things get pushed from the top down instead of coming from individual departments, it’s usually about hitting predetermined targets, not real efficiency. The documentation advice is spot-on though. I kept detailed logs anyway since government work demands accountability. That record saved my ass multiple times when priorities shifted and people forgot why certain tasks existed.
I worked in government for twelve years before transitioning to the private sector, and I can assure you that this data collection occurs more frequently than most realize. The timing and language used in these requests often reveal their true intent. Genuine efficiency reviews usually have specific objectives and involve managers familiar with the work involved. However, vague inquiries with quick turnaround times tend to indicate administrative groundwork for pre-made decisions. I’ve witnessed this trend repeatedly; such exercises serve to create documentation that justifies leadership’s predetermined plans. Ultimately, middle management receives these summaries and implements changes based on ‘employee input’ that often goes unanalyzed. What frustrates me most is the long-term damage to workplace trust. Even if immediate consequences are not evident, employees remember having to justify their roles, which alters their interactions with leadership and fosters a defensive mindset regarding information sharing that could otherwise be beneficial. As Harry mentioned, it’s essential to document your actual responsibilities, and also keep track of the informal contributions that maintain operational continuity—these essential tasks are often overlooked in official job descriptions yet quickly fade away when experienced employees depart.
i dunno, but sometimes simplifiying things can help. it might be just a way to see how things really work and get rid of redundancies. getting straight to the point is often needed - maybe it ain’t as bad as you’re thinkin.
You’re spot on about the setup angle. I’ve watched this exact playbook play out in corporate restructuring over and over.
What kills me is how ridiculously manual this whole thing is. Thousands of people documenting their work by hand, then someone manually reviewing all those responses? Pure bureaucratic nightmare.
Here’s what actually works: Skip the one-time snapshot BS and set up automated tracking that captures real value over time. Track outcomes that matter - citizen satisfaction, processing times, cost savings by department.
When our company faced layoffs, management wanted everyone to justify their jobs. I knew the manual approach would bomb, so I built automated dashboards showing actual productivity metrics, project impacts, and team contributions to company goals.
The data did the talking. Not “I process forms” but “I processed 1,247 forms last month, cut average wait time by 23%, and saved citizens 156 hours of waiting.”
Ongoing automated documentation crushes bullet points written under pressure every time. It shows patterns, trends, and real impact that’s tough to argue with.
Government agencies could easily track and report their actual citizen impact automatically. Way better than this manual exercise that’s basically designed to fail.
The automation platform I use for workflow tracking handles these scenarios perfectly: https://latenode.com
Been through this exact thing when our company did “optimization” a few years back. Called it skills assessment, but same playbook.
Watched 200+ engineers get evaluated. The survivors weren’t the best performers - they just understood the game.
When they made us document our work, smart people focused on measurable impact and revenue. Not “I maintain the database” but “I maintain the customer database processing 50k daily transactions worth $2M revenue.”
You’re right about the no-win scenario. But there’s a third option - make yourself harder to replace than keep.
Document your institutional knowledge. Write down weird edge cases only you know. Unofficial processes that actually work. Cross-department relationships that’d take months to rebuild.
Managers struggled cutting people with embedded knowledge because knowledge transfer costs were too high.
The testing theory tracks too. People who panicked and job hunted immediately got cut first. Management sensed the flight risk.
One more thing - if this is really happening, build relationships across departments now. Internal transfers beat external hires during restructuring.