“Fudgelling”, I learned the other day, is an 18th-century word meaning “pretending to work whenyou’re not really working”, which goes to show it’s anage-old phenomenon. (There’s also the Italianphrase giacca civetta, or “owl jacket”, a moderncoinage to describe the jacket slung over a deskchair, late at night, while its owner is enjoying ladolce vita.)
Today, with work demanding more of us than ever, it’s no surprise to witness the rise ofextreme fudgelling. In a recent study, the academic Erin Reid spent time at an unnamed USmanagement consultancy that exp plans to stay late, etc. She discovered that 31% of men and11% of women found ways tects total devotion from employees: responding to emails atmidnight, cancelling birthday plans to stay late,etc.She discovered that 31% of men and 11%percent of women found ways to “pass” as workaholics: they vanished from work without tellinganyone, or made covert deals with colleagues so they could spend time with their families.
And here’s the thing: it worked. People who made formal arrangements to reduce theirworkloads - more often women - got penalised for not pulling their weight. Yet the fakeworkaholics, predominantly men, were seen as no less devoted to their jobs than the realones, and were rewarded accordingly. This says something depressing about sexism, but it alsoshows that what was being rewarded wasn’t relentless work, but the appearance ofrelentless work.And here’s the thing: it worked.
What we are dealing with here is “signalling”- in this case, how we communicate the messagethat work’s getting done, which doesn’t always mean work’s really getting done.