The recent comment about a 90-hour work-week by an industry leader has reignited a debate on optimal working hours. This glorification of overwork flies in the face of both historical precedent and modern research, which demonstrate the vital link between ‘human capacity’ and ‘economic output’. It’s not about laziness versus ambition but understanding the principles of sustainable productivity.

The tragic death of a young professional in Pune last year, a direct result of extreme work demands, poignantly illustrates the devastating ‘human cost’ of this obsession. Pushing employees like machines, running them 24/7 without enough rest, may yield a temporary boost in output but ultimately leads to breakdowns, costly errors, and a loss of productivity.

Before the Industrial Revolution, work was largely tied to agrarian cycles and daylight. The 19th-century rise of factories brought unprecedented work intensity, with up to 16-hour days, six days a week, common in burgeoning British iron and textile mills. Child labour was rampant, and workplace safety was non-existent.

Robert Owen, a Welsh textile mill owner turned social reformer, pioneered humane working conditions in the early 1800s at his New Lanark mill in Scotland. He implemented a 10.5-hour workday, education for workers’ children, and improved living conditions. Owen’s profitable mill demonstrated that ‘worker well-being’ and ‘economic success’ were not mutually exclusive.

By 1817, he advocated for the eight-hour day, coining the slogan: “Eight hours’ labour, Eight hours’ recreation, Eight hours’ rest”.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw labour movements fight for 40-hour work-weeks, unionization, voting rights, democracy, and safe working conditions.

In 1926, Henry Ford’s adoption of the 40-hour work-week, driven by the observation that rested workers were more productive, increased output and profitability for Ford. Though not purely altruistic, Ford’s decision benefited workers.

The 1938 Fair Labour Standards Act (amended in 1940) by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, made the 40-hour work-week and two-day weekend official in America. Many countries have since adopted similar or shorter work-weeks.

Long hours, more output?

Modern research confirms that longer work hours don’t yield proportionally higher output. Instead, studies show diminishing returns followed by negative impacts on individuals and organizations.

A key study by British economist John Pencavel found a non-linear relationship between ‘hours worked’ and ‘output’: output initially increases proportionally, then rises at a decreasing rate beyond a certain threshold. Pencavel’s research, published by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, also highlighted the crucial role of rest, demonstrating that working on Sundays, thus forgoing a rest day, ultimately harms weekly output.

Beyond productivity, overwork carries a substantial human cost. The WHO recognises ‘burnout’ as a syndrome and an “occupational phenomenon” linked to chronic, unmanageable workplace stress. A 2021 WHO and ILO study published in Environment International revealed that long working hours (55+/week) contributed to an estimated 7,45,000 deaths from stroke and ischemic heart disease in 2016.

Additionally, a meta-analysis featured in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that ‘longer working hours’ were significantly associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease, underscoring overwork’s systemic public health impact. The relentless pressure to be “always on” fosters a toxic environment where work can be prioritised over health, even life itself, in extreme cases.

Rethinking Productivity

The digital age has fostered a culture of “hidden overtime”, where the promise of flexibility masks a reality of increased work demands. ADP Research Institute’s 2022 “People at Work” study, surveying more than 32,000 workers across 17 countries, reveals an average of 8.5 hours of weekly unpaid overtime, rising to 8.9 hours in the Asia-Pacific region.

This unpaid labour, often disguised as early starts, late finishes, and the expectation of constant ‘digital availability’, significantly contributes to burnout. The fact that 53 per cent of employees surveyed would take a ‘pay cut’ for a better work-life balance and 50 per cent for guaranteed work-hour schedule flexibility exposes the pervasive desire for boundaries and a rejection of the “always-on” expectation that technology has enabled.

Unlike India, where an average Indian worker spends 46.7 hours per week on the job (ILO), a healthier work-life balance is reflected in the practices of some of the world’s most advanced and happiest nations. The latest ILO data show OECD countries which collectively contributed over 60 per cent of 2021 global GDP, like Denmark (29.5 hours/week, and 2nd happiest globally), the Netherlands (26.7), Norway (27.1), and Germany (29.7) average far below 40 hours. Despite this, they maintain strong economies.

Several Central legislations govern the rights of employees, including the Factories Act, 1948, the Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, among others.

The Factories Act of 1948 mandates a 9-hour daily limit, a 30-minute break after 5 hours of continuous work, a 48-hour weekly limit, and double pay for overtime. Simultaneously, state-level Shops & Establishments Acts typically stipulate 8-10 hours/day (48 hours/week) with a 50-60 hour weekly limit, including overtime and a 30-minute break after five hours of work. However, the gap between law and practice is wide, leaving millions of workers facing exploitation, low wages, and poor work-life balance. For instance, white-collar workers’ rights and obligations are largely defined by their individual employment contracts, rather than standardized labour laws. This is due to ambiguities in applying existing legislation to this group.

Additionally, the lack of uniform contract templates leads to significant variations across companies, creating an inconsistent and complex regulatory landscape for white-collar employees.

It’s time to discard the outdated belief that time spent at work directly translates to value created.

Instead, leaders must prioritise output and results over mere hours logged. The future of work demands a shift away from the dogma of overwork towards a more intelligent and humane approach that prioritises both ‘productivity’ and ‘well-being’. This means embracing flexible work arrangements, leveraging technology to enhance efficiency, and, most importantly, recognising that human beings thrive when they have time to rest, recharge, and pursue lives outside of work.

The challenge, therefore, is not simply to adjust working hours but to fundamentally rethink our relationship with work itself, to move from a culture of “more” to a culture of “better”.

Singh is a final-year student at RGNUL, Punjab; Swarup, former coal & school education secretary, Government of India