Research shows that Americans work 25% more hours than their counterparts in Europe. Why do Americans work so much more, and is it worth it?

Countries that value prestige, power, and wealth place a greater premium on work ethic. In such circumstances, socialization practices across cultural institutions pass on expectations one must work very hard to get ahead to beat out social competitors. This is transformed into industry norms - e.g., long work weekends, the expectation to travel, or bosses who stay late - that pressure employees to conform if they want to fit into a certain company culture. To the extent culture helps a nation adapt to its environment then such practices may be seen as successful. For instance, America still ranks as among one of the wealthiest, most prolific, and the highest number of entrepreneurial ventures in the world. Our cultural ethos helps sustain a competitive edge. However, this can come with liabilities such as heightened levels of adult depression, greater relational discord, and more undue stress and unhappiness compared to countries that prioritize other aims such as leisure, family, or community support.

Does working more hours always translate into higher productivity? Does this vary by industry or job type?

No for a variety of reasons. First, working a lot could be indicative of low efficiency and skill in one's current role. To the extent one needs to put in extra hours to fix past errors or compensate for poor planning is not a sign of improved productivity. Second, working longer hours could be a sign of a poor work system in which organizational hindrances, poor coordination, or unnecessary rules and regulations interfere with an employee's ability to get work done. Three, long hours could be a sign of bad management which demands more of their employees while offering fewer resources.

That being said, to the degree one's job is driven almost purely by solo effort (e.g., writer, researcher, entrepreneur) then it is likely more time invested into an activity can translate into greater output. If one works smart in a supportive system, then each hour dedicate translates into a boost in performance. However, if working poorly in a broken system then every hour spent is more of a futile effort trying to overcome hurdles rather than make meaningful progress.

What is the ideal number of hours to work per week?

There is no silver bullet. For me, it would be as many hours as needed to make meaningful advancement on important goals needed to sustain a unit’s productivity. For some, this may be 5 hours a week whereas for others it could mean 50.

This being said, there has been a flurry of arguments from economists, academics, and others who suggest a 4-day work week may actually boost productivity in the long run because employees can better focus their attention. They simply have more time to recharge, refresh, and reload which allows them to be fully immersed in their tasks. To test this out, companies can do quasi-experiments comparing plants with 4-day to 5-day weeks and chart any changes in output or employee behavior.

What policies should governments and firms adopt to improve the quality of life of American workers?

The best research on this topic comes from Ed Diener and his academic progeny of which numerous articles from economists, sociologists, political scientists, and psychologists call for a public policy of human well-being. Diener recommends annual quantification and tracking of national well-being indices which parallel our fixation on monetary indicators such as GDP, stock returns, or employment rates. This could include daily subjective well-being metrics, tracking social media sentiment, and conducting large-scale national panels on a routine basis akin to how individuals track GPD and price inflation through estimations of annual expenditures.

Building on such an index, we could track the effects of public policy on national health. According to Diener, there is evidence the public policies that best boost citizen happiness include unemployment benefits, progression taxation, and income equality whereas others (e.g., larger government spending per GDP) do not. Interestingly, historical lagged analyses have shown during years of progressive taxation the bottom 40% of Americans in terms of wealth were substantially happier whereas the top 20% richest Americans were not significantly less happy. Translation, progressive taxes will improve the well-being for a large swathe of Americans and will not undermine the well-being of the richest.

Finally, there is lots of work happening around the notion of policy on quality of work, including issues on work-family balance, equitable pay, and designing jobs that provide meaning and challenge for employees. This is because the quality of our work plays a large role in mental health, social status, and general attitudes. As one example, Barling and Griffiths (2002) documented how Sweden developed legislation in the late 1970s that gave workers input on how jobs were structured and also enhanced the degree of fit between workers' attributes and characteristics of a given job. This may partially explain why Sweden enjoys some of the highest well-being levels in the world.

Blustein, D. L. (2008). The role of work in psychological health and well-being: a conceptual, historical, and public policy perspective. American psychologist, 63(4), 228.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2018). Beyond money: progress on an economy of well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 171-175.

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2015). National accounts of subjective well-being. American psychologist, 70(3), 234.

Oishi, S., Kushlev, K., & Schimmack, U. (2018). Progressive taxation, income inequality, and happiness. American Psychologist, 73(2), 157.

Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2014). Can and should happiness be a policy goal? Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences, 1(1), 195-203.