Why is it that I can find lots of information on "work stealing" and nothing on "work shrugging" as a dynamic load-balancing strategy?

By "work-shrugging" I mean busy processors pushing excessive work towards less loaded neighbours rather than idle processors pulling work from busy neighbours ("work-stealing").

I think the general scalability should be the same for both strategies. However I believe that it is much more efficient for busy processors to wake idle processors if and when there is definitely work for them to do than having idle processors spinning or waking periodically to speculatively poll all neighbours for possible work.

Anyway a quick google didn't show up anything under the heading of "Work Shrugging" or similar so any pointers to prior-art and the jargon for this strategy would be welcome.

Clarification/Confession

In more detail:- By "Work Shrugging" I actually envisage the work submitting processor (which may or may not be the target processor) being responsible for looking around the immediate locality of the preferred target processor (based on data/code locality) to decide if a near neighbour should be given the new work instead because they don't have as much work to do.

I am talking about an atomic read of the immediate (typically 2 to 4) neighbours' estimated q length here. I do not think this is any more coupling than implied by the thieves polling & stealing from their neighbours - just much less often - or rather - only when it makes economic sense to do so. (I am assuming "lock-free, almost wait-free" queue structures in both strategies).

Thanks.