Workslop instead of Workshop? Why we need new rules for collaboration
Sarah Bleuler
22.07.2026
AI tools promise to take work off our hands. Often, however, they merely shift it elsewhere: what appears professional simply passes the actual workload on to the recipients. This is changing the way we work together. It is high time we talked about it.
Whether internally, with project partners or clients: at Dezentrum, we work as a team. We refine ideas, submissions, publications and guidelines in shared documents. This brings together people with different ideas, backgrounds and values. It leads to discussions and friction, and requires a great deal of communication. Collaboration is as demanding as it is enriching.
For some time now, new tools have been shaping this kind of collaboration: AI tools present themselves as assistants, as team members sitting at the table with us, as efficiency wonders that take on tasks and lighten the load.
After three years of using them, however, we ask ourselves: is that really the case?
AI makes it easier than ever to make work look good without the actual thought process having taken place: neatly formulated concepts, fancy presentations, structured reports which, on closer reading, turn out to be lacking in substance or full of errors. We’ve all been there: you receive a five-page document and, upon reading it carefully, it becomes clear that the content is insubstantial and needs to be completely rewritten.
There’s a name for this phenomenon: «Workslop». We all experience it every day. And we need to talk about it.
The term was introduced by researchers at Stanford University. It refers to work that, whilst appearing professional, effectively shifts the actual mental effort and workload onto the recipients. Those who receive it must research, verify, correct and fill in the gaps. It is not uncommon for this to take more time (and money) than carrying out the task themselves.
This is problematic, as it undermines the trust on which good collaboration is based.
Let’s talk about the use of AI
AI can be useful, and yes, we use it too. It’s good enough for many things: looking up a term, checking grammar or compiling minutes from notes. The problem isn’t the tool itself. The problem is that it raises expectations it cannot fulfil, and we often only realise this when it’s too late.
Collaboration thrives on ideas that are unfinished but personal – sometimes daring, sometimes impractical and uncomfortable. AI delivers exactly the opposite: generic, run-of-the-mill bullet points. So if everyone brings their AI-generated ideas to a discussion, who’s actually taking part in the discussion anymore? And where’s the collaborative process?
By now, we have a pretty good idea of what makes for good collaboration. It’s worth investing time in interpersonal relationships. It’s better to clarify working methods, roles and responsibilities early on, and to talk about money before it becomes an awkward issue. Psychological safety is key, and communication tools are only as good as the people using them.
All of this still applies.
What’s new is this: at the start of a project, we should discuss the use of AI just as we would responsibilities or money. Which data can be used in which tools? When and how do we declare the use of AI support? And above all: which tasks do we deliberately choose not to carry out using AI?
Better unfinished than meaningless
An unfinished thought from a workshop is more valuable than a perfectly worded but meaningless text. In this context, the concept of psychological safety takes on new significance. After all, when AI produces perfect-looking designs in a matter of seconds, there needs to be all the more trust within the team so that people feel confident enough to share even offbeat, crazy ideas or unfinished work.
At the end of the day, it’s less about whether or not AI is used. It has long been part of our workflows. What matters is that, as teams, we discuss and document transparently from the outset how and when we work with it. And above all: that we protect the spaces where collective thinking can take place without it.
Image credits
«Stochastic Parrots at Work» von IceMing & Digit
«The image reflects the emerging, often improvised ways humans and AI are learning to work together.»
