If this behavior is not nipped in the bud, it creates a toxic culture where projects are always being planned poorly, management's expectations are always misaligned with reality, and all of the engineers are burned out.
I would say that if 1 is the case, then 2 might not be the best way to deal with it, but:
What if a project is not particularly poorly managed? What if you simply have an ambitious deadline that the team as a whole tries to make, whereby different individuals probably perform differently? Is the "hero" or heroes, defined implicitly (in the article) by a higher pace, still to blame for a "toxic culture" as you call it?
While you go ahead and nip that in the bud and make sure your teams are as average as possible, I'd go work somewhere where going the extra mile is actually appreciated.
While you're working unpaid overtime, I'll go work somewhere where "work life balance" is not just something they put in the company description.
My point is, the option and choice to work harder is one of a few options that can be chosen. That choice should never be forced upon the team or individual members, but if done freely it can work out great.
And who said anything about unpaid overtime?
For the hero, either the project succeeds or fails. Step up! But non heros instead look for a target to blame and then proceed to sabotage that person and the project to ensure they don't get the blame themselves. Their job is to find ways to work as little as possible.
The hero's job is a successful project. If it fails the hero is to blame. At the end of the day, it's always the engineers' fault if it fails.
I can't believe this article blames the problems on those who step up to fix them.
Better just to ignore the problems?
Reminds me of the folks who say, "don't work so hard! You're making the rest of us look bad! "