I do not think Ruth Porat is an example to be followed by the majority of "ordinary" people who do not define themselves through their jobs. A job should be fulfilling and provide you with means, but it should not consume your whole life, if you do not want to. This is not "work ethic", this is extreme exploitations.  If you work 80-hour week, with your exempt status you are actually earning at half the rate of your stated salary.

"She has said in no uncertain terms that she doesn't believe in "work-life balance," and her actions on many occasions have proven that point.

From working through childbirth and breast cancer to spending her free time flipping houses, she never sits still." 

The thing about workaholics that makes the big difference for me is whether THEY THEMSELVES can recognize their behaviors and drives as personal quirks -- that working all the time is a coping mechanism or a simple lack of ability to find absorbing hobbies -- or whether they feel superior to normal people who work to live. Porat seems to show this self-reflection when she talks about breast cancer, but her remarks about her children being part of Morgan Stanley are confusing.

Masha, you're right, she's extreme. 

And Joyce, you're right, this is perplexing:

Porat told Politico that she doesn't like the term "work-life balance" because it sets up men and women for failure.

She instead prefers to find a work-life "mix" that integrates her work and family into one entity. She explained to Politico that her three sons had been "integrated into Morgan Stanley throughout their lives."  

Porat believes employees should find a mix that will shift depending on work and home needs, but that the two should never be fully isolated from each other.