Prof. D. Mukhopadhyay
The ’70-Hour Work Week preached by N. R. Narayan Murthy, the co-founder of Infosys, is a controversial notion that deserves a comprehensive critique. It is essential to consider whether this doctrine aligns with management principles and whether it has adverse effects on productivity. The argument presented are deeply rooted in well-established principles of management, including a humanistic approach inspired by the Hawthorne Study (1924-1932) and the contributions of Mary Parker Follett(September 3, 1868- December 18, 1933) often regarded as the mother of modern management. This write up also delves in the references and statistics provided by Narayan Murthy, particularly those related to Germany and Japan, which he cites to support his idea. One of the fundamental flaws in Narayan Murthy’s ’70-Hour Work Week ‘ is the belief that slogging longer hours in the office correlates with increased productivity. This assertion goes against modern management principles, as it disregards the understanding that productivity is not solely a function of time spent working but is instead influenced by factors such as efficiency, focus, and well-being. The notion that more extended working hours lead to greater productivity was already challenged by the Hawthorne Study (1924-1932). This landmark research conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago concluded that worker productivity was influenced by various social and psychological factors, including human interactions, job satisfaction, and group dynamics. The Hawthorne Study debunked the simplistic notion that longer hours translate into increased output, highlighting the importance of considering the holistic well-being of employees. Moreover, Mary Parker Follett, a pioneering management thinker, emphasized the significance of human relations and the integration of employee perspectives into decision-making. Her work stressed the importance of collaboration, mutual respect, and the humanistic approach in modern management. The ’70-Hour Work Week ‘ seems to disregard Follett’s insights, as it prioritizes long hours over humane and collaborative working environments.
Mr. Narayan Murthy’s argument for long working hours is partially grounded in the experiences of Germany and Japan. He asserts that these countries became industrialized nations due to their extensive work hours. However, it is crucial to examine this claim critically.While it is true that both Germany and Japan are known for their strong work ethics and dedication to quality, their industrialization was not solely a result of laboring longer hours. These countries owe their success to a combination of factors, including technological innovation, quality control, investment in education, and a deep commitment to excellence. In fact, Japan, for instance, is renowned for its emphasis on Kaizen (continuous improvement) and Lean manufacturing principles, which prioritize efficiency and waste reduction over extended working hours.Germany and Japan’s industrial prowess is not an endorsement of the ’70-Hour Work Week ‘ Gospel. Instead, it serves as a testament to the importance of a holistic approach to productivity that values quality, innovation, and sustainable practices over simply working longer hours. Moreover, Let us see what statistics speak about Germany and Japan. The average annual working hours of German and Japanese during the Post-War were about 2200 hours and 2400 hours respectively which is , say , 8.30 to 9.00 hours a day during a five- day- work -week and this is even 2.50 hours less than proposed doctrine of Mr Narayan Murthy. It is notewothy that ‘mean’ working hours has been reduced to say about 1386-1691 hours a fiscal year which amounts to 5.30 to 6.00 hours a day in case of Japan and Germany respectively . Again, GDP may be a good measure of emplyee productivity. The ‘mean; annual working hours in India was 2077-2122 hours during 1970-2000 respectively and emplyee productivity has increased insignificantly from $2 per hour to $9 per hour in 1970 and 2020 respectively. Whereas it is $69 and $43 per hour in Germany and Japan respectively in 2020
Implementing a 70-hour work week can have adverse effects on employee morale and overall well-being. Modern organizational behavior, as expounded by scholars like Fred Luthans, emphasizes the significance of employee satisfaction, engagement, and work-life balance. A rigid adherence to long working hours can undermine these essential elements of a healthy workplace. Prolonged working hours can lead to burnout, reduced job satisfaction, and a decline in overall mental and physical health. These negative consequences can ultimately lead to decreased productivity, absenteeism, and high turnover rates. In contrast, modern management principles encourage a more balanced approach to work, valuing the quality of work over the quantity of hours spent on the job. Mr. Narayan Murthy’s idea aligns more with Theory X of Douglas McGregor’Theory X and Y, which assumes that employees inherently dislike work and need to be closely controlled and coerced into being productive. This view disregards Theory Y, which suggests that employees are capable of self-motivation and can find satisfaction in their work. Theory Y management principles encourage a more participatory and collaborative approach, where employees are trusted and given autonomy. A 70-hour work week approach does not align with this theory, as it implies a lack of trust in employees’ intrinsic motivation and self-management abilities. Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs places self-actualization and self-esteem at the pinnacle of human needs. To achieve these higher-level needs, individuals require a sense of fulfillment and personal growth, which is often stifled by excessive working hours. A 70-hour work week, without consideration for individual well-being and work-life balance, can thwart employees’ pursuit of self-actualization and self-esteem, ultimately leading to dissatisfaction and decreased productivity. The equity theory (J. Stacy Adams) posits that employees compare their inputs e.g., effort, time, skills to their outputs e.g., salary, recognition and seek fairness in this exchange. If employees perceive that their efforts are not adequately rewarded, it can lead to a sense of inequity, reducing motivation and morale.
A 70-hour work week may be perceived as an unequal trade-off, especially if it is not met with appropriate rewards or recognition, thus undermining employee engagement and productivity. Modern organizations focus on maintaining positive psychological contracts with their employees. These contracts encompass mutual expectations, obligations, and perceived fairness in the employment relationship. A ’70-Hour Work Week Idea’ could disrupt these psychological contracts if employees perceive it as a breach of their expectations for work-life balance. This can lead to decreased trust, commitment, and increased turnover, all of which have adverse effects on productivity and organizational success. Quality management principles emphasize that quality should be built into processes and products from the start, rather than relying on excessive working hours to correct defects. TQM encourages a culture of continuous improvement, customer focus, and employee involvement. A 70-hour work week can undermine the core principles of TQM by focusing on quantity in terms volume (hours ) over value (quality and efficiency)
Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of motivation highlights that job enrichment and intrinsic factors such as recognition, achievement, and responsibility are key drivers of employee satisfaction. A relentless adherence to long working hours, without consideration for the enriching aspects of work, can lead to employee dissatisfaction and a lack of motivation. In contrast, Herzberg encourages the creation of roles that offer employees opportunities for achievement and personal growth, which are more likely to lead to increased productivity and job satisfaction. This theory underscores that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to management. Different situations and organizations require different management strategies. A 70-hour work week is not universally suitable and can be detrimental in many cases. For instance, knowledge workers, who rely on creativity and problem-solving, often thrive in environments that promote flexibility, autonomy, and a balanced work-life arrangement. The rigidity of a 70-hour work week contradicts the tenets of contingency theory. Today’s work environments are increasingly embracing flexible work arrangements, including remote work, flextime, and compressed workweeks. These arrangements recognize the diverse needs and preferences of the workforce. A ’70-Hour Work Week Idea’ dismisses the importance of flexibility and adaptability in the modern workplace, which can hinder an organization’s ability to attract and retain top talent and maintain a productive workforce.
Numerous organizational behavior and management theories may challenge the ’70-Hour Work Week Gospel’ proposed by N. R. Narayan Murthy. These theories emphasize the importance of a balanced approach to work, recognizing that productivity is not solely a function of extended working hours but also depends on factors such as employee motivation, well-being, and the quality of work performed. Adhering to excessive working hours can lead to negative consequences, including employee burnout, decreased morale, and reduced productivity. Organizations that aim to thrive in today’s competitive landscape often prioritize a people-centric approach that considers the holistic needs of their employees, aligning more closely with these modern management principles and theories while some business heads may endorse Narayan Murthy’s views on the ’70-Hour Work Week’ idea,’ it is essential to recognize that this perspective is not universally accepted. The endorsements may stem from traditional beliefs or an overemphasis on productivity metrics that do not consider the holistic well-being of employees.
Modern management principles, as advocated by scholars and practitioners in the field, stress the importance of a balanced, humane approach to work. They align with the understanding that employees are not mere cogs in a machine but valuable assets to an organization whose productivity is best nurtured through fair working hours, supportive environments, and a commitment to employee welfare. N. R. Narayan Murthy’s ’70-Hour Work Week’ presents a myopic perspective that is at odds with modern management principles. The belief that longer hours equate to greater productivity ignores the lessons of the Hawthorne Study and the wisdom of Mary Parker Follett, who emphasized the importance of human relations and holistic well-being in the workplace. The partial truths about Germany and Japan cited as examples only scratch the surface of these countries’ industrial success, which was achieved through a combination of factors, including innovation and quality control. Moreover, implementing a 70-hour work week can have adverse effects on employee morale and well-being, which are critical considerations in modern organizational behavior. Balancing work hours with the well-being of employees is a cornerstone of effective and sustainable management practices. While some haver already endorsed the ’70-Hour Work Week Idea,’ it is vital to scrutinize this perspective within the context of modern management principles. Ultimately, a more comprehensive, humane, and balanced approach to work is likely to yield better results, both in terms of employee satisfaction and organizational productivity.
(The author is an Educationist and a Management Scientist)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
