The outcomes of illegitimate tasks at work: A meta-analysis

Illegitimate tasks have garnered significant scholarly interest over the past decade, establishing such tasks as a key concept in stress research. Despite this, there has been no comprehensive quantitative systematic review to synthesize existing research findings. Addressing this gap, our meta-analysis (k = 141; N = 65,124) quantitatively examines the consequences of illegitimate tasks across three domains: attitudinal (affective commitment, job satisfaction, work engagement, and turnover intentions), well-being (negative affect, burnout, and work–family conflict), and behavioral (job performance, innovative behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior, and work withdrawal behavior). We also compare the relationships between the two dimensions of illegitimate tasks—unreasonable tasks and unnecessary tasks—and related outcomes to assess their differential predictive validity. Furthermore, we investigate the potential moderating effects of sociodemographic factors (power distance and age) and methodological factors (rating source and measurement time lag). In light of the findings, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications.