The 90 hour week conundrum

This issue is layered (assuming that the statement from the L&T CEO was genuine).

Problem statement is whether one should work 90 hours in a week or not. And whether this can be applied in a corporate setting.

1. Personal autonomy

If someone is invested and enjoys their work so much that they want to work 90 hours, so be it. Why should work and hobby be any different? There may be people who have found their forte, although most don't.

2. Expectation as an employer

The relationship between employer and employee is delicate. Under such a relationship, if you expect this kind of a dedication, it may be unfair to the employee. Employees may not think of this job in the same vein as you do. So even though it can apply to one in a personal mission statement kind of way to inspire oneself and others, it is not fair to expect others to do the same. Everyone has their own pace at which they discover their calling. If you only want to work with people who are like you, then there will be very few to choose from. It leads to practical issues.

3. Ego

Humanity is all about perseverance. That is one thing a living being can do which a non-living being can't. But placing too much importance on the ego's importance in the grand scheme of this universe is a kind of conceit which only man can have.

There are two varying viewpoints historically on this thorny issue. The first one is of the objectivist philosophy, which celebrates this conceit and says that man's perseverance towards his own self-interest is the primary responsibility and no other should be allowed to take its place. It sees man as a heroic being who is born to reshape nature by his own endeavour for his own self-interest of happiness. Under this, charity is forbidden, and the only relationship that can exist between two individuals is that of cooperation, with each working towards their own self-interest.

The other, and dominant, is the one that is espoused by religion and is more practical. In which the ego is sought to be the reason for suffering, is supposed to be destroyed by practicing ascetism, and when it is annihilated, one is supposed to reach nirvana or peace. Happiness is considered a mere emotion, a fleeting one which is ultimately replaced by sorrow. The relationships with others are supposed to contribute to the sorrow, and should ultimately be let go.

Now let's attack the issue at hand. If you believe in objectivism, then is it better to work at a balanced pace and preserve your health, or work 90 hours and contract health problems which will limit your ability to work further? Also is it not in your own selfish interest to also take care of your family and your finances? How can they be done well if you delegate all of them or don't have any time to do them? So even in this philosophy it does not make sense.

If you believe in the mainstream philosophy, then it makes no sense to work 90 hours because attachments are discouraged, and will ultimately lead to sorrow. More ego means more entitlement, leading to sorrow as you might face conflicts between your expectations and reality.

4. Commitments

Even in a scenario where a person has found his calling and is able to work productively for 90 hours a week, one has to do other things in life to survive. Work is only one of the responsibilities in life. There may be family, finances, expenses etc. If he still wants to do only one, delegating is the only option. Unfortunately not many have that luxury. Most people don't have anyone to fall back to. So although wanting to work this much is okay, but again it seems impractical for most.