Philosophy of work

[IvoryBlackBishop]

As far as this one goes, it's not deniable that much of one's "work" doesn't actually translate into productive time (from every efficiency perspective, being able to complete the same "tasks" within a shorter time-frame is productive, which is why "working hours" arguments are stupid from any serious employment productivity perspective, and usually just the source of anti-intellectual arguments and information).

Much as how people working tend to grossly 'overestimate' the actual time spent "working" as well. So I was curious if anyone has anything akin to a philosophy of work, business, management and so on which they believe, at least in theory" would remedy these problems and ensure the most productivity as well as awareness and intellectual or mathematical accountability for actual productivity rather than simple whims or guessing at what "work" was actually accomplished within a certain time frame, and where most of the time was actually used at or spent at to begin with.

Sadly, my layman judgment has been that most people will not be people whom one can get a serious reply from, whether due to selfishness, incompetance, apathy, lack of personal or fiscal accountability, and so on; most of the time, one will just get idiotic stereotypes, clichés, and loaded opinions about "work" and "business" of a loaded and usually negative and unappreciative variety. As well as spurious "job titles" which often don't equate or attempt to substantiate what types of actual "work" are being done to begin with, and what types of faculaties, skills, talents, etc one is actually using in said "work" to begin with, or the contextualization of any "job title" in any meaningful degree of comparison or "ranking" within the context of one's likewise ambigiously, if not dishonestly defined industry.

[Skepdick]

All ambiguity disappears when you measure on output, not on input.

If you have no results to show for all of your efforts - why should anybody care?

[Impenitent]

you are what you do...

-Imp

[IvoryBlackBishop]

All ambiguity disappears when you measure on output, not on input.

No, it actually doesn't.

For example, if tomorrow you found $10,000 deposited into your bank account, and learned that this was mistakenly deposited there on behalf of another customer, rather than by your employer, you would risk felony charges if you falsely conflated the same output with the same input.

If you have no results to show for all of your efforts - why should anybody care?

Why shouldn't they?

Results are simply means to something which is end in and of itself. If the end in and of itself is inherently worthless or inferior, then so are the results which lead there to begin with.

Much how whatever arbitrary minutia are used as the measurement of 'input' or 'output' can be easily redefined on entirely different mathematical axioms altogether (preferably less ugly and inferior ones).

[Skepdick]

For example, if tomorrow you found $10,000 deposited into your bank account, and learned that this was mistakenly deposited there on behalf of another customer, rather than by your employer, you would risk felony charges if you falsely conflated the same output with the same input.

Not in my country. A mistake on your behalf is not a crime on mine. There is no Mens rea

The ambiguity will be trivially resolved either when the bank informs you that the amount was deposited in error; or when you actually receive the deposit from your employer.

Results are simply means to something which is end in and of itself. If the end in and of itself is inherently worthless or inferior, then so are the results which lead there to begin with.

The end is the result. The end is the output. The goal. The final destination. The "Why?".

If the end/result/goal/objective is worthless and inferior - you are only demonstrating why measuring on output matters.

Don't do things which have worthless/inferior results.

Why shouldn't they?

Because the end result is worthless and inferior!!!