Are long hours at work good for the bank’s bottom line?

There is a fascinating debate going on in the financial world and its media about the damaging effects of working long hours, especially in the banking profession.

The lines of engagement are pretty clear: on the one hand, there are those – often people from outside the banking industry – who condemn the culture of long working hours at many banks, and call for some kind of statutory working hours limit for all employees.

Their argument was strengthened by the sad death recently of a young banker in London who had been forced, or at least had felt himself obliged, to work three consecutive “all-nighters” in a row. An all-nighter means working until dawn of the day following the one you first stepped in the office, grabbing a quick shower and maybe 30 minutes’ nap (often in the office), and then being back at your desk by 8.30am latest.

It sounds barbaric, a uniquely 21st-century form of sleep deprivation, but it is still pretty common in the industry, which expects maximum commitment from all employees, especially in the run-up to a transaction that might involve billions of dollars and the livelihoods of thousands of people.

On the opposite side of the debating room, there are those (most of whom, it seems, are already in the industry) who believe long working hours should be permitted, even encouraged, in a business where the practitioners are enormously well rewarded, where new entrants are aware of the culture they are getting immersed in, and where commitment and dedication can make the difference between clinching or losing a big transaction.

Even in the UAE, where most working environments in my experience are rather more laid-back and civilised than, say the hothouses of New York or London, the arguments and counter-arguments fly back and forth.

One Dubai banker I’ve known for several years is firmly in the latter Stakhanovite camp. His regime is almost monkish in its dedication. I’ve been at meetings with him until the early hours of the morning; I’ve met him for coffee at 6.30am, I’ve bumped into him at the DIFC on Friday afternoon, when most of the city is on the beach or at the mall. (I’m not quite sure what I was doing in DIFC on a Friday, mind you.)

He explains: “I was an awfully lazy student at university, slept all day, partied all night, and only scraped through exams by the skin of my teeth. When I got the job with the bank, I felt very lucky and privileged, like I had another chance in life, and have just decided to make the most of it. I’m 42 now, and with any luck I’ll be able to retire from banking by the time I’m 45.

“Yes, it’s a tough stressful life, and puts a strain on the family. But it will all be over in a couple of years, and I will go back to being a student again.” I think he’s joking about the last part, but maybe not.

On the other hand, another acquaintance, who has also had a long career in the financial business, takes an entirely different view. “It’s a job, not a vocation. I have other things in my life, especially family. I’ll never be a ‘master of the universe’ I know, but that was never on my agenda anyway.

“I never take work home, and I always try to be home for dinner. Occasionally there might be a client event I have to go to, but I always resent it. And weekends are sacrosanct, especially Fridays. If somebody in London, for example, suggests a conference call on Friday, I always decline and offer a Sunday slot instead. They soon learn.”

It’s a debate that needs to be had.

Follow The National's Business section on Twitter