chair

Leyla Kazim has taken chair warming very far. Writer and presenter for the BBC, a few weeks ago she told it on her Substack A Day Well Spent his experiment, a sort of ‘The Fiaca‘ by Talesnik applied to the world of work as Marisa executed with mastery in ‘The discontent‘the sharp debut feature of the brilliant Beatriz Serrano, but elevated to maximum power: a year without hitting the water in a London technology company. Nothing happened. Neither conflict nor dismissal nor discovery, unlike the ghost official of Cádiz who spent six years without going to work: it was the worker herself who took her knives things and closed the door from the outside, evidencing in a crude and documented way the structural cracks of large corporations and office positions. A real experiment on bullshit jobs and face-to-face work. Let Rita work. In 2013, Kazim spent an entire year doing absolutely no work for the London-based tech company where she was employed. Nobody noticed. In 2014 he left the office permanently voluntarily: neither reprimands nor dismissals were appropriate. His trick? He spent as little time as possible fulfilling his contractual obligations, doing so at a level competent enough not to raise suspicions. The mechanism was quite simple: he spent 15 minutes a week preparing for meetings where he showed fictitious progress and meanwhile spent the hours with an open Excel sheet. Neither budgets nor calculations for projects: he planned his personal trips. She made her efforts, but in other tasks, the most important: those dedicated to herself. Why is it important. The case of Leyla Kazim is not an isolated anecdote: this YouGov poll put on the table that 37% of British adult workers believe that their work contributes nothing to the world. And this has consequences: there are investigations from the universities of Cambridge and Birmingham who point out a relationship between the sense of purpose in employment and psychological well-being. Come on, if you think that your work is useless, you’ll burn out sooner. On the other hand, it exposes business control systems: if a corporation is unable to detect that one of its employees has not worked for twelve months, something is wrong: the performance metrics it uses, whatever they may be, do not work. Context. Kazim’s experiment is a practical application of bullshit jobs, or shit jobsa concept coined by anthropologist David Graeber. His thesis is as simple as it is uncomfortable: between 37% and 40% of workers in rich countries feel that their work is worthless. In this sense, automation has been part of the problem: according to Graeber, instead of freeing us from repetitive tasks, it has led to the creation of empty jobs. The consequences are twofold. For the person who works, psychological deterioration: it is difficult to get up every morning knowing that what you are going to do does not matter. For the company and the economy it represents a waste of talent and money. But the most revealing thing about Graeber’s theory is precisely what the writer has done: those who occupy these positions know it perfectly well and yet they pretend that they don’t. They keep up appearances because the system demands it. Added to this phenomenon is the in-personismthat cultural mechanism that allows shitty jobs to go unnoticed: it doesn’t matter about productivity, the important thing is to be in your chair all the hours that your workday marks. Since 1998, it has been studied and defined as “the tendency to remain at work beyond the time necessary for effective performance.” When a company measures visibility instead of results, in-person attendance becomes the norm: just what protected and masked Leyla Kazim for a year. In detail. Kazim masterfully exploited both phenomena: on the one hand, a job with functions so diffuse that reducing it to the minimum essential did not generate any imbalance (what Graeber calls box ticker tasks) and on the other, he took advantage of the company’s face-to-face culture. It is worth remembering that there are work environments that consciously or unconsciously perceive better and reward those who arrive earlier and leave later. In fact, has been proven that there are managers who show a predilection for in-person workers compared to remote ones due to proximity bias. As long as she had Excel open, kept her schedule, and attended meetings, the lack of effort went unnoticed. What he learned. The now BBC presenter’s conclusion is that modern office work is something of a play. Once you accept that your work has no real purpose and understand the rules of the game, you have a better chance of winning, which in this context means spending as little time as possible on contractual obligations. Of course, he issues a warning: his experiment is neither universal nor does he recommend it. Having a shitty job with diffuse tasks and wrong performance metrics is not the same as having someone whose job, even if it is shit, consumes their health or their room for maneuver is tight. On the other hand, let’s remember that even this perception of having a shitty job ends up taking its toll on psychological well-being. In Xataka | We believed that AI was going to take our jobs. At the moment he has started whispering to your boss who he should fire In Xataka | Spain has become accustomed to something abnormal in the rest of Europe: working with unsustainable stress levels Cover | Vitaly Gariev