Villariba vs. Villabajo: Why Better Work Beats More Work

Two Worlds of Work: More Effort or More Efficiency?

Remember that ad where two teams tackle the same task in completely different ways? One team works smarter, while the other just puts in more hours and grinds harder. Two approaches: one optimizes processes, the other ramps up effort. That image comes to mind whenever I follow the current debate about longer working hours. Should we really just work more—or work smarter?

The answer is obvious: more work doesn’t automatically mean more productivity. Studies show that overtime can even backfire. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), people who regularly work over 55 hours a week have a 35% higher risk of stroke. At the same time, cognitive performance drops when we’re exhausted. The result? Less efficiency, more mistakes, higher sick leave.

Why Simply Working More Doesn’t Work

The strategy of just putting in more hours is a fallacy. It ignores the fact that productivity doesn’t scale linearly with time. A fictional example:

Imagine: A mid-sized IT company introduces a 42-hour workweek to boost productivity. The developers work longer hours, but the quality of the software suffers. Bugs pile up, customer complaints increase, and the team is stressed. The manager realizes: the extra hours don’t deliver the expected output—just more overtime and frustration.

The problem? The solution wasn’t more time, but better use of existing resources. Instead of extending working hours, the company could have leveraged strengths, optimized processes, or used AI tools for support.

What Science Says

The WHO study from 2021 is clear: overwork harms health and, in turn, productivity. But there’s an alternative—the strategy of smart efficiency. It rests on three pillars:

• Strengths-based approach: Deploy people based on their talents, rather than forcing them into tasks that don’t suit them.
• Automation: Delegate routine tasks to AI or tools to free up time for creative, value-adding work.
• Healthy leadership: Create working conditions that combine purpose, health, and performance.

Gallup confirms this approach: teams led with a strengths-based focus are 21% more productive, 22% more profitable, and 73% more engaged. The numbers speak for themselves—but how do you put this into practice?

The Smart Efficiency Strategy in Action

What could the smart efficiency strategy look like in a company? Another fictional example:

A team leader in a sales team of seven notices her employees are increasingly stressed. Sales figures are stagnating, even though everyone’s working overtime. Instead of extending hours further, she chooses a different path:

1. Analyze strengths: She identifies who excels in customer interactions, who has analytical strengths, and who develops creative solutions. Tasks are redistributed—not based on availability, but on talent.
2. Leverage AI: A chatbot handles lead pre-qualification, so the team can focus on the most promising contacts. Routine work is reduced, and the success rate climbs.
3. Practice healthy leadership: She introduces regular check-ins to spot overload early. She also fosters a culture of appreciation, where successes are recognized.

The result? After three months, sales rise by 15%, sick leave drops, and the team is more motivated. The smart efficiency strategy paid off—without a single extra hour worked.

Leaders as Drivers of Change

The smart efficiency strategy only works if leaders take responsibility—on three levels:

• For themselves: Leaders must question their own working habits. If you’re stuck in the operational hamster wheel, you won’t have capacity for strategic decisions.
• For their team: Recognize and nurture talents. That also means delegating tasks that don’t align with employees’ strengths.
• For the organization: Challenge old patterns and enable new ways. That might mean breaking down rigid hierarchies or introducing AI tools to handle routine work.

Martin Seligman, one of the founders of Positive Psychology, emphasizes: “Success isn’t just about hard work—it’s about the right work.” That’s the core of the smart efficiency strategy: not working harder, but working better.

Midway Summary: Why We Need Smart Efficiency

The debate about longer working hours is a symptom of a deeper problem: we look for solutions in more effort, rather than more efficiency. But the strategy of pure overwork leads to a dead end. It ignores the limits of human performance and the potential of modern work methods.

The smart efficiency strategy offers a different path: leverage strengths, use AI, practice healthy leadership. It’s not a one-size-fits-all solution, but a framework that helps companies work more productively, healthily, and satisfactorily. The question isn’t whether we work 40 or 42 hours a week—but how we make the most of the time we have.

At the end of the day, it comes down to a simple truth: we don’t need longer workweeks. We need better ones. Ones that create meaning, protect health, and deliver impact. Ones that focus on smart efficiency, not just more work.

Originally published on LinkedIn.