New Hire Takes ‘Don’t Do Anything Outside Your Job’ Literally, Boss Regrets It Instantly

There’s a special kind of workplace irony when your boss insists you “don’t know anything”, and then gets upset when you act like it. Many new hires have been there: trying to learn, eager to do more, only to be scolded for stepping out of line.

That’s exactly what happened to one young professional fresh out of college. After being publicly criticized for following her coworker’s instructions, she decided to take her boss’s words literally.

From that moment on, she did only what was required, nothing more, nothing less.

This story reads like a classic case of “do-as-you’re-told and nothing more” turned into a workplace existential crisis.

The OP landed a first full-time job, got the company to fund his licensing, passed it, and then found himself publicly chastised by his boss for overstepping, which led him to purposely perform the bare minimum.

The company sponsored his training, he passed the exam, and the associate coworker helped him under explicit instructions. Then the boss sent a wide-group email scolding him for answering a client question about contracts, even though he did so with coworker approval.

Feeling humiliated and unsupported, the OP responded by strictly staying within the narrow boundaries of his “job description” instead of proactively learning or engaging further.

From his side, he feels unfairly reprimanded and emotionally sidelined. From the company side, they may argue that “what matters” is following proper protocols and that the OP ignored an established chain of command.

The underlying motivations: the OP’s attempt to protect his dignity and well-being; the boss’s attempt to enforce role boundaries and process compliance.

This resonates with a broader social phenomenon often dubbed “quiet quitting” or working strictly to the job description. As The Guardian reported: “The quiet-quitters are avoiding the above-and-beyond… instead they are doing just enough.”

The article links this shift to job dissatisfaction, unclear expectations, and fractured workplace communication. The OP’s retreat to minimal effort is a textbook response to feeling undervalued and micromanaged.

Organisation psychologist Dr. Ashley Weinberg explains: “If an event happens that violates the psychological contract… people may mentally check out or reduce discretionary effort.”

In this scenario, the OP’s boss effectively signalled that “you don’t know anything yet” which triggered the OP’s strategic withdrawal of extra effort.

The OP might request a one-on-one meeting with his boss to clarify his role, find out what is realistically expected of him, and express how he wants to grow. He could ask for a formal training or roadmap rather than self-navigating.

The company could benefit from clearer onboarding, defined job descriptions, and mentoring rather than shame-based correction. Both parties would gain from resetting expectations and restoring trust.

Here’s what the community had to contribute:

These commenters jumped straight to the legal angle.

These users agreed the firing looked retaliatory, but added nuance.

This trio shared their own workplace horror stories, from guilt-tripping managers to absurd hazing rituals.

These commenters summed up the mood perfectly: Mary was “not a good manager.”

Injecting humor into the chaos, they lightened the thread with jokes about bad teachers and even a playful “Mary, Mary, why you buggin’?”

What started as a lesson in humility quickly turned into a masterclass in malicious compliance. Many called it a satisfying “you said it, I did it” moment, while others felt a twinge of sympathy for the wasted potential.

Do you think the Redditor was right to pull back after that public dressing down, or should they have taken the high road? Sound off, this one’s corporate karma at its finest.