There's a great article in the October 17th, 2011, issue of Fortune entitled "Collins on Chaos" that is an excerpt of the book "Great by Choice". It seems quite relevant to this discussion.
The authors compare the leadership at companies that consistently outperformed their competitors during good times and bad, with the leadership at the nominally-performing companies.
The outperforming leaders set a benchmark defining "consistent progress", e.g. profitable every year (Southwest Airlines), 20% growth per year (Stryker), etc. They then fought to achieve that benchmark even during the toughest years (perhaps obvious), but they also restrained themselves so as to not exceed (by much) their benchmark during the "boom" years. Even though it might seem counter-intuitive, these "restrained" companies performed better over the long run than those companies which grew quickly during the good times.
The point is perhaps that you might achieve more by both committing to, and limiting yourself to, some more reasonable number of hours per week.
The authors compare the leadership at companies that consistently outperformed their competitors during good times and bad, with the leadership at the nominally-performing companies.
The outperforming leaders set a benchmark defining "consistent progress", e.g. profitable every year (Southwest Airlines), 20% growth per year (Stryker), etc. They then fought to achieve that benchmark even during the toughest years (perhaps obvious), but they also restrained themselves so as to not exceed (by much) their benchmark during the "boom" years. Even though it might seem counter-intuitive, these "restrained" companies performed better over the long run than those companies which grew quickly during the good times.
The point is perhaps that you might achieve more by both committing to, and limiting yourself to, some more reasonable number of hours per week.