Most workplaces ask their staff to complete timesheets. Presumably this has some kind of administrative purpose, and it also means the staff get paid. A good thing.
When I worked at Macquarie Bank, I had to divide my time up into tiny segments—usually 15 minutes each—and allocate them to the variety of projects I worked on—usually 10 or 12 per month. It literally took me four hours every month to complete.
By comparison, my manager typically completed just one line with one figure: one month of work on team management for my team.
It's funny that, from a timesheet perspective, large companies aren't interested in what their managers do. They pay them a lot of money to manage teams, but don't get much in the way of feedback about what they actually work on. Is that a good way to run a company? What other metrics can you use to assess the ability of a manager?
