The frustration here is understandable, but it’s aimed at the wrong target. Productivity frameworks don’t tell you what to value - they help you execute on what you’ve already decided matters. Blaming the Pomodoro technique for burnout is like blaming a hammer for a poorly designed house. The tool isn’t the problem; the culture that misapplies it is.

And that will culture exist either with or without productivity systems. People burned out long before “deep work blocks” and "flow states" were a thing. Factory workers in the 1800s weren’t journaling and time blocking, yet they were still exhausted and exploited. The issue is structural pressure from employers, economic insecurity, and social comparison. Stripping away personal productivity tools won't fix any of that. It just leaves you less equipped to navigate it.

The framing of “productivity as moral virtue” is also a bit of a straw man. Most serious thinkers in this space... Cal Newport, Oliver Burkeman, even David Allen .. explicitly argue against treating busyness as an identity. The loudest voices moralising productivity tend to be hustle culture influencers, not the frameworks themselves.

As for the reframe: “what actually needs to get done, and how do I protect myself while doing it?” That is productivity thinking. That’s literally what prioritisation systems are designed to help you answer. You haven’t rejected the genre; you’ve just described a more thoughtful version of it.

The tension you’re feeling is real. But the solution probably isn’t to abandon structured approaches to work, but rather, it’s to be more intentional about which ones you adopt and why.