India’s growth demands innovative and comprehensive solutions, not radical ones that are likely to prove counterproductive.
When Narayana Murthy proposed a 70-hour workweek, the idea immediately ignited fierce debate across India. From employees to college students and industrialists, the nation found itself divided along sharply contrasting lines. Supporters champion the proposal as a crucial step toward accelerating India’s ascent to developed-nation status, arguing that lengthening work hours is the only way to ignite the economy and foster rapid growth. Opponents, however, view it as a threat to work-life balance, an imposition that would ultimately do more harm than good. Both sides, though, often miss a critical point: why exactly is this change being suggested, and, more importantly, is it practically viable?
If the push behind a 70-hour workweek were simply to encourage young professionals to sharpen their skills, expand their expertise, and build a strong foundation for their careers, there would be little room for dissent. Ambitious individuals already pour considerable personal time and, often, money into staying competitive in a demanding job market. But when the proposal transforms from a well-intended piece of advice into a mandatory, fixed commitment such as a rigid 70-hour week, the situation changes fundamentally. What was once an aspirational suggestion now takes on the weight of a contractual obligation, raising questions not just about feasibility but about the long-term consequences.
Firstly, if the plan is to compensate employees for these additional hours with proportionally higher wages, what exactly would be achieved? Looking at the IT industry, which this idea originates from, we see that the workforce is primarily made up of engineering graduates, many of whom face high unemployment. Rather than paying one worker for 70 hours a week, a more effective strategy might be to hire two workers for the same amount. This would not only tackle the unemployment crisis but could also foster part-time roles for those with family commitments. The economy could benefit greatly from such an approach.
If, however, the expectation is that employees will work longer hours at the same salary, the company’s bottom line will certainly improve. But this comes at the expense of employees’ work-life balance. This model essentially values the number of hours worked as the sole measure of an employee’s contribution. A healthier alternative would be for companies to focus on raising revenue through innovation and business models that do not hinge on an employee’s hours logged.
The second issue that looms large is how productivity and quality will be measured. Output is easy to gauge when tasks are well-defined and repetitive, such as in manufacturing or retail. But many service-sector jobs, especially in IT, finance and management, require creative thinking and problem-solving, which are not easily quantified. Asking employees in these roles to work more hours may not lead to better results. Often, this additional work is done remotely and is not counted as formal working hours. Mandating longer hours will unlikely lead to the desired outcomes, and may compromise the quality of work as employees rush to meet unrealistic expectations.
Secondly, a major point that has been overlooked in the debate is how to measure productivity and quality. Output can only be measured clearly when the activity is well defined and repetitive in nature. Jobs on the manufacturing assembly line, in courier services, call centers, or retail stores are examples where productivity is quantifiable. But many jobs, especially in the service sector, require creativity and nuanced thinking. Take IT professionals, for instance. The work is largely intellectual, involving problem-solving and analysis, where long hours may not equate to better quality or more output. Such work cannot easily be ‘left behind’ at the office, and employees often end up working from home, outside of formal working hours. This means the expectation of additional hours could exacerbate burnout without delivering tangible benefits. Similarly, while productivity in such roles is hard to quantify, so too is the quality of output. Expecting employees to work longer hours could lead to rushed work and compromised quality.
Finally, if the intention behind the proposal is the broader economic development of India, then a deeper analysis is needed. Developed nations in the West have not reached their current status by pushing their workers to log longer hours. In fact, average working hours in these countries have historically been lower, and overtime work is compensated. Even in industries like IT, employees are paid to be on call after regular hours. The simplistic equation of longer working hours with national development ignores the socio-economic challenges it could bring, as seen in Japan’s workaholic culture. J.R.D. Tata’s preference for a happy India over a rich India rings particularly true in this context.
It is undeniable that India’s productivity levels are low, but the root causes are multifaceted and complex. They range from deficiencies in education, healthcare, and public transport to broader cultural issues in the workplace. Instead of resorting to easy answers like the 70-hour workweek, government and industry leaders must explore innovative and comprehensive solutions to improve workforce productivity and the quality of life for workers. Only then can India truly accelerate its growth. The 70-hour workweek, however, will likely prove to be a counterproductive shortcut.
(The author works with an IT company and is a keen political observer.
Views personal.)
コメント