Off-the-clock culture

The ongoing debate over the 70-hour workweek has ignited widespread discussion, particularly in India. Research consistently shows that longer working hours do not enhance productivity; in fact, they often diminish it. Some of the most productive countries in terms of output per hour, such as the Netherlands, Ireland, Norway, and Luxembourg, also have some of the shortest workweeks. In contrast, Japan, known for its grueling work culture—including 44-hour workweeks and up to 80 hours of overtime per month—ranks 30th in labor productivity per hour. This intense work culture has even led to alarming phenomena like Karoshi (death due to overwork) and Karojisatsu (suicides caused by work-induced mental disorders).

India, with its emphasis on long working hours, ranks 133rd in labor productivity per hour. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), India's productivity levels are relatively low compared to global standards. As of 2023, its GDP per working hour was estimated at $8, placing it far behind more productive economies. The glorification of long hours is a myth—it does not foster efficiency but instead leads to social and personal challenges. Unfortunately, many Indian organizations equate extended office hours with commitment and dedication. Employees who stay late are often perceived as hardworking, while those who leave on time are unfairly judged as less dedicated.

The Japan Productivity Centre reported that in 2022, Japan ranked 30th out of 38 OECD countries in labor productivity. Japanese workers earned $52.3 per hour, the lowest since comparable data became available in 1970. Even though Japan's labor productivity increased by 0.8% in 2022, its ranking fell by two places. In comparison, Ireland topped the productivity rankings at $154.1 per hour, followed by Norway at $149.9. The United States ranked ninth among G7 nations at $89.8, while Germany stood at eleventh with $87.2—significantly higher than Japan’s figure of $52.3, which also fell below the OECD average of $65.2.

Two primary groups advocate extended work hours: company founders and salaried top management. Founders may argue that long hours drive productivity, while salaried executives often engage in competitive overstaying to impress their superiors. This has led to a culture where merely being present in the office for extended hours is seen as a pathway to career success. Employees who stay late—often, even on weekends and holidays—are rewarded with promotions, reinforcing a flawed system that prioritizes visibility over actual performance.

Such practices disregard labor laws, work-life balance, and overall well-being. Although these concerns are discussed in theory, they are rarely addressed in practice. This is a pressing issue in Indian workplaces that requires immediate intervention. The persistence of long work hours is rooted in contextual psychology and flawed assumptions about dedication. Many leaders who rose to the top through overstay expect the same from their subordinates, reinforcing a toxic cycle. Challenging this mindset is often perceived as a threat to established leadership values.

Having spent a decade in the banking industry, I have observed how overstaying often overshadows sincerity. Employees who quietly complete their tasks and leave on time are judged differently from those who stay late. This perception affects performance evaluations, where overstaying is often mistaken for hard work. As a result, employees who extend their work hours gain an unfair advantage in promotions over more deserving candidates. When these individuals reach top positions, they perpetuate the same flawed practices, expecting long hours from their subordinates. Anyone questioning this system is seen as a threat and a misfit in the organizational culture.

A common workplace remark— “Where are you these days? You’re not visible.”—reflects this flawed mindset. Visibility should not be equated with productivity. Ironically, those engaged in sincere work are often less visible than those engaged in superficial tasks. Organizational culture and leadership perceptions must shift to recognize and reward actual performance over mere presence. Silence should not be undervalued, nor should shout be mistaken for dedication. Human resources departments, management experts, and corporate leaders must take proactive steps to dismantle these toxic work environments and foster a more humane, performance-driven workplace culture.

Overstaying is detrimental to workplace culture. It fosters an unhealthy environment, negatively impacts employees' personal and social lives, and leads to stress and burnout. Employees engage in a race to outstay one another without any tangible improvement in performance. Showcasing takes precedence over sincerity, and corporate culture begins to value loudness over competence. Those who quietly perform their work efficiently are often overlooked, while those who stay late alongside their bosses are seen as committed. This intense competition to overstay influences career growth, reinforcing a cycle where employees rise quickly by conforming to these expectations.

Overstaying should be recognized as a sign of inefficiency, insincerity, and poor time management. Organizations must implement strong performance metrics that evaluate employees based on results, sincerity, and professional behavior rather than time spent at the office. Overstaying should be considered an unhealthy indicator of performance rather than a mark of dedication. Additionally, performance evaluation processes should minimize human intervention to reduce bias.

To counter this culture, organizations must set ambitious yet realistic deadlines, implement accountability systems that minimize human biases, and establish policies discouraging official communication on weekends and holidays. High-performing employees should be allowed to leave early, and those who extend their workdays unnecessarily should be held accountable. Flexible working arrangements can also help shift the focus from hours spent at the office to actual productivity.

Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta
Professor