In a short article in the April 2017 HBR, the authors note that leisure time used to be a sign of social status. A couple of experiments showed that today, being “crazy busy” was a symbol of status, as it suggests that busy peoples’ talent was in high demand (as opposed to the likelihood that they’re just disorganised and over committed). Americans believe that busyness is a positive signal of status.  The article notes that this attitude isn’t found in Europe, where having ample leisure time is still regarded as signifying higher status than staying late at the office.It’s good to have the research confirm my casual observation. For a long time I’ve thought it ironic that we used to define success in terms of “gentleman’s hours”, as opposed to those of a manual labourer. Gentlemen’s hours started at 9.30 and rarely went past 3, except on Wednesdays when work stopped at midday, quick lunch at the club then off to the golf course. How far we’ve come! Success is now defined as being too busy to think.Another little irony: all the devices that were supposed to save us time and free us up from having to be in the office actually chain us to the business more tightly than ever. Why, a gentleman could send an email from the golf course. Except that the labour saving devices have made us too busy to play anything (except the occasional guilty game on the phone).I like the European approach. To work those kinds of hours indicated that you’re organised, you’ve got a great team and you’re only doing the work that matters. And by the way, the famously leisurely French with their legal maximum of a 35 hour work week and their 5 weeks of legally required holidays are no less productive than their US and German counterparts and more productive than Britain’s.Who’s got it right? More important, how do you react to this analysis?