As a result, CEOs are arriving at meetings with urgent realizations about falling behind, founders are working extreme schedules, and entrepreneurs are sacrificing travel, vacation, and personal relationships for the cause. An all-nighter before a major launch has been a staple of the tech industry, making for a good story to tell afterward, but this is something different. The intensity is palpable; the AI revolution is creating both ecstasy and agony in equal measure, with the growing number of self-reported 100-hour workweeks or open-letter requests for the employees to work long-term 80-hour schedule.

But observing this intensity firsthand, I believe there’s another perspective worth considering about building enduring businesses in times of disruption.

Having built and sold a company for $2.25 billion, I’ve learned that the entrepreneurs who create lasting value—and the exits that matter—aren’t the ones burning themselves out in hundred-hour weeks. They’re the ones who understand that “overnight success takes seven years to build” and that working a 100-hour week over a prolonged period of time is unsustainable. 

Success is a compounding game

Building a business isn’t a sprint—it’s a marathon of sprints. In many team sports, such as hockey, the “repeat sprints” metric is a better predictor of performance than a straight-line dash. Business is the same way – you have to know when to push, but you also have to learn to recover quickly, and most importantly, how to keep going, over and over again. The real value doesn’t come from working nonstop for a quarter. It comes from compounding: compounding talent, compounding expertise in your industry, compounding brand recognition and customer trust, and compounding product capabilities.

This compounding only happens when you’re in the game long enough to see it through. And you can only stay in the game if you’re operating at a sustainable pace.

I learned my limits the hard way 

Part of what makes a mature entrepreneur or executive is knowing where your limits are—both for long-term sustainability and short-term bursts—and mixing these modes of work strategically. There are times to sprint and times to pace yourself. The wisdom is in knowing which is which.

When I started my first business at 18, I was simultaneously holding down a full-time job and pursuing my college degree. That pace would be unsustainable for me now, in my 40s with children. But here’s what the 100-hour evangelists miss: I more than compensate for any slight difference in hours with decades of practical experience, connections, and pattern recognition.

The 100-hour workweek is a blatant myth

Let’s be honest: many claims of 100-hour workweeks are either exaggerations or unsustainable anomalies. While there might be unique individuals who can genuinely sustain this pace, both personal experience and medical research consistently show that sleep-deprived people are less productive.

More importantly, business and product development is a high-stakes game. We’re paid to make crucial decisions under uncertainty, often without complete information, and then live with the consequences. The quality of these decisions deteriorates rapidly with exhaustion. Would you want your surgeon operating on hour 95 of their workweek?

When ‘hard work’ becomes a red flag

Here’s a tell: when founders claim they’re tired of working too much, something is fundamentally wrong. When founders genuinely work long hours sustainably, it’s typically a labor of love — they’re energized by the work, not exhausted by it.

The current AI panic is producing a different dynamic. Founders describe operating from profound paranoia, treating every fifteen minutes as having a price tag, feeling that everything is urgent and critical. This isn’t passion; it’s panic. And panic rarely produces good long-term decisions.

It’s a mental game, and if you’re in the wrong mental mode, you won’t sustain long enough to see the benefits of compounding. You’ll burn out before your business model proves itself, before your team gels, before your product finds market fit.

Companies lie about work-life balance (and it hurts everyone)

I wish HR policies, both in Europe and the U.S., allowed companies and individuals to be more transparent about work expectations. It’s perfectly fine for some founders and companies to push hard—innovation often requires intensity. The problem arises when there’s a disconnect in expectations.

Some startups need people willing to work startup hours. Some people thrive in that environment. The issue is when companies pretend they offer work-life balance while secretly expecting 80-hour weeks, or when candidates overestimate their work ethic during interviews. This disconnect hurts everyone.

AI changes everything except human biology

Yes, AI represents a significant technological shift. Yes, companies need to adapt. The urgency is real and well-documented. However, the laws of human physiology and psychology remain unchanged. Sustainable success still comes from building strong teams, making good decisions, and staying in the game long enough for your advantages to compound.

My own experience validates this: the company I built to a $2.25 billion exit wasn’t the result of grinding 100-hour weeks. There was plenty of grind to go around. Still, more than that, it was the result of good teamwork and consistent, strategic decision-making over the years, building systems that could scale, and maintaining the mental clarity needed to navigate complex market dynamics. The founders who burned out early never got to see their compounding effects.

The irony is that in rushing not to be left behind by AI, many are adopting work patterns that virtually guarantee their businesses won’t be around long enough to benefit from whatever AI revolution emerges. 

Build for the long term. Know your limits, and be ready for the fact that there are people who can’t match them. Create sustainable excellence across the team. The compounding will take care of the rest.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.