>

I'm not sure about this. Because, if you are going to promote based on willingness to stay late to accomplish more (when their actual skills or rate of work accomplishment is the same, and they're only getting more done because they're staying late) then you are essentially setting the expectation that they will stay late forever. So someone who stays late consistently one year will get promoted to a manager position and then may stop staying late and just do mediocre work, but now they're getting paid more than someone else who only stays a normal amount (the hours they are actually assigned and expected to work) and getting the job done fine. Both those people should actually be paid the same and be looked at the same for promotion.
Staying late should not be normalized in any sort of salaried position. If it's hourly, and someone wants to stay late to get paid overtime, great. They should be allowed to do that. But let's stop promoting people who stay late in a salaried position over people who don't. All that does is set an expectation that people SHOULD stay late, and we should not have job expectations that are outside of normal work hours.
I don't mind people working 12-14hour days. If they're happy doing it so be it. 
I don't understand it and its not for me, but who cares. Where i start to to have a problem with these people is more often than not, they try to push this lifestyle onto other coworkers who prefer to spend their time at home/doing other shit. 
Like, you can stay at the office until 9p.m. but if you honestly believe i will accept a teams-meeting after 5p.m., you can screw right off. And don't whine about it either, because I'm not the one doing too little, you're the one doing "too much". >

I don't mind people who work 14 hours days. Where I mind is when they basically end up "setting the standard" at their workplace and then everyone else gets compared to them when it comes time for performance reviews, promotions, etc.
It's an unrealistic standard for anyone with a family or other responsibilities or, to be honest, a healthy work-life balance and hobbies. It's nothing to do with being "lazy." Sorry but I have 2 young kids and 2 dogs, and probably spend more time "working" at the end of the day than someone who spends 14 hrs at their actual workplace... because I come home and have to cook and clean and look after babies and wake up through the night. But to an employer, I work "less." Is that lazy?? Or would I be justified in being annoyed if my employer asked why I can't/don't work as much as that asshole? >

Most performance appraisals are essentially a does not meet, meets, exceeds type of breakdown. So if these people are extra dedicated and churning out more productivity while maintaining quality, they are fair to set the bar for exceeds. It's the people who are unsatisfied that they get a smaller raise or bonus when they only get a "meets" that complain and honestly, I don't get the complaint. >

Imo, that "exceeds" should be reserved for people whose SKILLS and the work they accomplish in the allotted hours exceed expectations. Not people who simply exceed normal work hours.
Someone who does better work in 8 hours is better than someone who does the same level of work but just stays late. >

I agree with your last point. But if they are otherwise equal and one person is just willing to work more to accomplish more, that person exceeds. Doing an adequate job in your normal schedule is acceptable or meets. I would say someone who needs to stay late to perform the same amount of work that an average person gets done in a standard shift would not even be a meets.