Narayana Murthy is back in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. The Infosys co-founder has once again called for longer working weeks, this time increasing his earlier demand of 70 hours to 72 hours. His comments revive a debate that first exploded in 2024, when he argued Indian employees were not working hard enough to drive national growth.
Murthy insists this is not about spending more time sitting in an office, but about what he calls genuine hard and smart work. In his view, extended schedules are essential for innovation, productivity, and economic progress.
“No individual, no community, no country has ever come up without hard work,”
Murthy said, reiterating a position he has held for decades.
Table of Contents
The 996 comparison raises eyebrows
What makes this latest round of comments more striking is Murthy’s reference to the 996 work culture popularized by parts of China. The system, which requires employees to work from 9am to 9pm six days a week, was formally ruled illegal by Chinese authorities in 2021 after courts and regulators concluded it violated labor laws and posed serious health risks.
Pointing to a model that was officially banned for harming workers weakens Murthy’s argument rather than strengthening it. The comparison also ignores the social backlash and mass burnout that accompanied the 996 era.
Evidence continues to contradict the claim
The problem with Murthy’s stance is not a lack of conviction, but a lack of supporting evidence. The World Health Organization has warned that working more than 55 hours per week significantly increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, anxiety disorders, and depression compared to standard 35 to 40-hour schedules.
On the other end of the spectrum, multiple large-scale experiments have shown that fewer working hours can maintain or even improve productivity. Iceland’s four-day workweek trials reported higher emotional stability, improved well-being, and equal or higher output. Microsoft Japan recorded a productivity jump during its own shorter-week experiment.
These outcomes directly challenge the idea that longer hours reliably produce better results at a national or corporate level.
AI will not fix burnout
Murthy’s comments arrive at a time when AI tools are rapidly spreading across enterprises, often with the promise of boosting productivity. Yet automation does not eliminate the human cost of excessive schedules.
Office software and AI agents can reduce repetitive work, but they do not protect against chronic fatigue, cognitive overload, or long-term health damage. Productivity tools can streamline tasks, but they cannot replace sleep, recovery, or sustainable pacing.
The tech sector already shows visible signs of strain. Burnout among developers and engineers continues to rise, even as companies invest heavily in AI-driven efficiency.
A growing disconnect with modern work reality
High-profile tech leaders increasingly speak about long hours as a badge of commitment. Sergey Brin has described 60-hour weeks as a productivity sweet spot. Yet the broader industry reality suggests the opposite, with exhaustion, disengagement, and attrition becoming more common.
Murthy’s renewed push for extreme schedules feels increasingly disconnected from modern research, workforce expectations, and the direction global labor policy is moving toward. Productivity is no longer measured by time spent working, but by outcomes, sustainability, and human resilience.
Pushing 72-hour weeks may sound like discipline and ambition to some, but to many workers, it signals a refusal to acknowledge decades of evidence about how humans actually perform at their best.
