There has recently been some mild controversy in the investment banking community about the role of the 130-hour work-week for their junior employees, with some of the old guard thinking this is just fine—based, I believe, on the principle “I did it, so you should too. Combine this with Jeff Bezo’s comments about work-life balance (he prefers the term work-life harmony, which he feels makes him—ironically—a better husband and vice versa, a better worker; he also mentions that 100-hour work-weeks may be a bit “crazy”) and there does seem to be a narrative that to be successful in certain industries requires a massive time commitment.
Having worked hours like this in the past, I can say there can be rare times when an extended +100 hr/week time commitment is warranted, however, we need to be clear what the purpose of this is—both for your organization and yourself.
For example, there may be life and death situations when long work hours are necessary—natural disasters and some military engagements come to mind.
And in healthcare, there can be some benefit to the continuity in caring for certain types of patients over an extended period, such as when managing ICU patients (however, it’s questionable that this benefit outweighs the risk associated with sleep deprivation).
And there also may be the rare business deals which do require a week or two of long hours.
But let’s not kid ourselves: If your career requires a long-term weekly time commitment of greater than 100-hours/week, then it will take a toll on your humanity. (There may be exceptions of people who are fully congruent with their career—perhaps in some monastery in Tibet— but I have yet to see anyone in business or healthcare who does not lose something of themselves with these types of hours).
Anyway, if your are called upon (or are choosing yourself!) to do these types of hours, be careful to consider the human cost. It may not be worth it.