An INSEAD graduate poses five tough questions on corporate India, L&T chairman S.N. Subramanian questioned the 90-hour work-week narrative.
Akshat Kharbanda’s questions on LinkedIn resonated widely, casting doubt on the logic and fairness of such expectations.
“If I give you 90 hours, are you paying me 90 hours? Promotions? Equity? Or just lip service on ‘patriotism’? “Let’s value results over hours and people over optics,” he said.
The controversy started with Subrahmanian defending Saturday working days, saying, “What are you doing sitting at home? How long can you look at your wife?” He compared it to China’s alleged 90-hour work ethic, claiming it was the key to economic dominance.
However, his comments failed to address whether such demands would include overtime pay or job security, a glaring omission highlighted by Kharbanda and others.
Kharbanda’s criticism went beyond rhetorical questions. “How much of this work is really value-adding, and how much is performative engagement?” he asked, questioning the efficiency of the overwork culture.
He further challenged old comparisons with countries like China and Singapore, asking whether they still apply in the modern Indian context.
IIT Mandi professor Nirmalya Kajuri added another layer to the debate, saying many countries compensate professionals for overtime while Indian companies routinely demand 50-60 hours without pay.
“If India strictly enforces overtime pay for 40+ hours of work, corporate bosses will suddenly champion work-life balance,” he observes. His posts, viewed nearly 400,000 times, drew attention to the lack of enforcement of overtime laws in India.
“Hard work matters for your growth, your goals and meaningful results. But working only to meet irrational expectations? Neither efficient nor sustainable,” Kharbanda wrote.
