A Corporate Demand Sparking Ethical And Health Concerns

There is a growing call from CEOs in the private sector urging employees to work more hours. One CEO previously proposed a 70-hour workweek, and more recently, another suggested a 90-hour week. This could become the new private sector ethic. A 90-hour workweek works out to 15 hours a day for a six-day week or 18 hours a day for five days. Even if stretched to seven days, it would mean almost 13 hours of work daily. Aside from the controversies these statements have sparked, this is a serious issue for anyone working in the private corporate sector.

Two Points to Consider

Before delving into the issues, two points must be made. First, it is not uncommon to hear top CEOs express that post-retirement, they wish to take a holiday or spend time with grandchildren. Evidently, their regimen in office didn’t allow such luxuries in their youth. Second, an RBI Governor who headed the central bank during some of the most turbulent times made it a point never to miss a new Bollywood release. His view was that such things happen constantly, and one cannot halt their life merely because the rupee is losing value. This makes sense.

The 70-hour ethic originated from a person who led an IT start-up that has since undergone a metamorphosis to become one of the top earners in the market. The 90-hour rule refers to one of the oldest companies in the world, which operates in a diversified capital goods and infrastructure space. It would still be considered an old economy company driven by the market spirit. This shift is part of new capitalism in India, where working long hours has become the norm. It is not just a case of investment bankers facilitating deals or management consultants finalizing contracts within the famous 90-day window. This practice holds across all industries. The ultimate justification is the ‘market requirement,’ as employees are working for shareholders and need to do everything to increase profit. How should one position themselves as an employer or employee in such an environment?

The Employer’s Perspective

From the employer’s standpoint, let us examine two sides.

1.    No Written Rules: Existing rules on working hours imply that any extension is more of a practice than a strict rule. Therefore, there are no written mandates for a 70- or 90-hour week. Daily working hours typically range from 7 to 10.

2.     Rewards for Hard Work: Employers justify these demands with rewards such as bonuses and stock options. Though rewards tend to be distributed unevenly across hierarchies, over time, they offer employees an opportunity to rise within the ranks and earn these benefits.

3.     Employee Choice: Companies often argue that they are not coercing anyone to work excessive hours. Once the rules of the game are established, the choice rests with the individual. If someone leaves, plenty of candidates are eager to take their place.

However, companies must also consider that with Gen-Z and millennials, who tend to be indifferent to such rewards and prefer a work-life balance, there is a constant threat of high attrition. High turnover means the resources invested in young staff are wasted as they are replaced. At some point, this group spends more time searching job placement sites for employee-friendly options than working. This is not favorable for companies.

The Employee’s Perspective

For employees, the reality of working 90 hours a week is complex.

1.     Peer Pressure: Working 90 hours can become a necessity, especially if others are doing so. The iterative process of late-night working is often driven by a chain reaction: one sits late because their boss does, the next level of boss sits late, and so on. Not falling in line can jeopardize one’s career.

2.     Health Concerns: There are limits to how efficiently the human mind can work. Long hours can lead to fatigue and, in extreme cases, raise serious health issues, such as coronary diseases, diabetes, and burnout, especially for those in the 30-40 age range.

3.     Career Risks: Not adhering to these demands has a serious downside beyond slower career advancement and compensation. The proverbial bell curve ensures that those who are non-compliant risk being included in staff rationalization. If someone ‘needs’ a job, following the rules becomes unavoidable.

The Way Forward

What could be the best way out? A new social contract is needed to ensure balance. Quality of work should take precedence over quantity, and targets set should be realistic. Unrealistic targets push employees to unreasonable limits under the guise of working for shareholder value. A healthy, happy workforce is vital for the progress of any company. Rewards should be appropriately mapped to ensure that employees do not leave due to ‘adverse working conditions.’

This contract must be transparent, where the rules of the game are clearly defined for employees so they know what they are getting into. Employees, too, need to assess the work-return tradeoff before joining an organization. If both sides adhere to their respective parts of the contract, harmony will follow. Developed countries focus on quality of work with 40-50 hour weeks (over five days) and have made significant progress. In contrast, we are now discussing seven-day workweeks. It is time for some introspection.

Madan Sabnavis
Chief Economist, Bank of Baroda and author of: Corporate Quirks: The darker side of the sun
Views are personal