For much of modern working life, time has been our most reliable unit of measurement. How many hours we logged, how “busy” our days are and how long we stay at the office… all offering a sense that “work is happening”. In many environments, particularly those shaped by industrial or operational models of labour, this approach continues to make sense simply because time is countable.
Yet, not only because of AI, but also as work has shifted increasingly towards knowledge-based, creative, and strategic roles, the relationship between time and value has become far less straightforward. This has prompted a growing conversation: about whether tracking hours is still the most meaningful way to understand contribution, or whether objective-based approaches offer a better fit for the realities of contemporary work.
Does time-tracking still make sense?
In theory, time-tracking promises fairness and clarity. Everyone is measured by the same unit, and effort is made visible. In practice, however, time does not equal value in roles that rely on thinking, synthesis, judgment, and creativity.
It’s easy to recognise that cognitive work rarely follows a linear pattern, and that long hours can just as easily signal inefficiency, poor prioritisation, or constant interruption as they can dedication or effectiveness. When work involves problem-solving or idea generation, the most valuable moments are often invisible and difficult to schedule, let alone quantify.
This mismatch becomes more pronounced in environments where being seen to be busy is implicitly rewarded. Time-tracking can encourage performative productivity: extended availability, rapid responsiveness, and full calendars, even when these behaviours fragment attention and undermine deeper work. Over time, organisations risk mistaking motion for progress, while employees feel pressure to demonstrate effort rather than deliver meaningful outcomes.
The growing interest in results over hours
Against this backdrop objective-based work has gained renewed attention. Rather than measuring how long someone works, objective-based models focus on what needs to be achieved, by when, and according to which criteria. Accountability remains central, but it is redirected towards outcomes rather than presence.
This is not a new idea. Models such as Results-Only Work Environments (ROWE) and frameworks like Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) have existed for years. What has changed is the context in which they are now being reconsidered. Remote and hybrid work have made it harder to rely on physical visibility as a signal of productivity, forcing many organisations to articulate more clearly what success actually looks like.
This shift has brought renewed attention to outcomes: what genuinely needs to be delivered, and how progress should be recognised when it appears.
Objectives as a different form of structure
It would be misleading to frame objective-based work as a removal of structure. In reality, it demands a different, and often more rigorous, kind of structure (not to mention self-discipline)
Clear objectives require careful scoping, prioritisation, and communication. They force organisations to articulate what matters most, rather than defaulting to hours as a stand-in for effort. When done well, this clarity can be liberating. Individuals gain more autonomy over how they organise their work, while managers gain more meaningful insight into progress and alignment.
Research into goal-setting, including well-known work published through Harvard, supports this nuance. While clear goals can significantly improve performance, poorly designed or overly rigid objectives can create perverse incentives or unintended pressure. The issue, then, is not whether objectives are used, but how thoughtfully they are designed and supported.
Objective-based work works best when it is accompanied by regular conversations, realistic expectations, and an understanding that not all progress is immediately visible. Without these conditions, objectives can become just as reductive as time-tracking, replacing one narrow metric with another.
The risk of replacing one problem with another
Critics of objective-based work are right to point out its potential downsides. Without boundaries, autonomy can slide into constant availability. Without realistic scoping, objectives can quietly expand. In these cases, flexibility becomes a euphemism for overwork, and responsibility shifts disproportionately onto individuals.
It is worth noting that time-tracking can be used to control, but so can poorly framed objectives. The difference lies in whether systems are designed around trust and mutual clarity, or around surveillance and risk management.
Deloitte’s recent insights into human performance echo this point. Their research suggests that organisations moving away from narrow productivity metrics towards broader performance outcomes tend to focus not just on results, but on sustainability, wellbeing, and long-term capability. The emphasis shifts from extracting maximum output to enabling consistent, meaningful contribution over time.
A more intentional approach to measurement
None of this suggests that time-tracking should be abandoned altogether. In many roles, particularly operational, client-billed, or safety-critical work, it remains necessary and appropriate. For some teams, it provides clarity and protection rather than constraint.
The more useful question is whether time-tracking is being used because it genuinely reflects the nature of the work, or because it is familiar and easy to control. As work continues to evolve, inherited measurement tools deserve re-examination.
Objective-based work does not promise a perfect solution, but it offers a way of aligning evaluation more closely with meaning. It encourages organisations to articulate what they truly value and invites individuals to focus their energy on work that moves those priorities forward. In that sense, shifting the conversation from hours to objectives is less about rejecting discipline and more about refining it.
Do you see objective-based work as a better reflection of how you contribute, or are you sceptical?
Share this article with a colleague and continue the conversation.
