But what about working smarter? Sure, such a thing is harder to measure, but it's pretty much the only gauge when you're talking about meritocracy. Working harder, not smarter, is the make-work bias.
Example: If you are a competent programmer, ranking up your programming skill (or otherwise increasing the quality of one's work product) is one of the least effective things you can do to increase your income in terms of ROI on time.
Let's say you're a fairly typical programmer who makes $80,000 a year working for an insurance company. Your goal is to make $100,000 a year and you are willing to use any legitimate means to get there. Should you attempt to program better, such that your bosses reward your increased productivity every year with a 4% raise instead of a 2% raise? No, that is poor strategy. First, your bosses are likely incapable of measuring the delta between you at present and you after improving skills. Second, you could likely get the same amount of perceived improvement for far less work just by improving your communication/political skills and getting the credit for the work you are already doing. Third, even if you're successful, you're going to spend the next six years of your life working to achieve something you could in about an afternoon: apply for new job, negotiate aggressively on salary.
I don't like sounding mercenary: you can apply this to almost anything else you value. Want to spend more time with your kids? Being a better programmer will probably not get you home any faster at night, or get you more days off. Want to have your job have more impact on the lives of poor immigrants in your community? Process improvements in programming at your insurance agency are not likely to get you there. etc, etc
Is it still true in the business world? Especially when you are running your own business doesn't hard work translate into something?
For me, When you are trying to get started in the business world, the temptation to keep churning day in and day out is pretty high. It may not necessarily be the right thing.
I know two offices in NYC at an employer that I probably shouldn't name. In one, an engineer toils away for 90 hour weeks and earns about $40k per year. In the other, an engineer works fairly typical Manhattan hours (my understanding is that that would be a little south of 50), and makes $120k.
The mistake made by the engineer in the first office? They were asked a fairly consequential question by a HR department three years ago, and said "Yes." instead of "No." Literally. One word.
The specific question was "Are you OK with your employer of record remaining our Japanese branch office?" The right answer would have been to get their employer of record transferred to the American subsidiary, which pays Manhattan wages to Manhattan workers, rather than Nagoya wages with a 25% hardship premium. He gets a gold star for loyalty, though.
That is about as close to a pathological case as I could think of, but in general, "hard work gets rewarded" is not something we repeat because it is accurate.
"Whenever there is a hard job to be done I assign it to a lazy man; he is sure to find an easy way of doing it" Walter Chrysler
I always thought that it was the lazy programmers and engineers who got more done because they always sought out the quickest/easiest ways to complete a task. Ergo it's the lazy ones who are the most productive and therefore valuable?
(Or have I just been beguiled by an old wife's tale?)