You asked for some insight, so I can offer part of a journal entry I made on the topic. This represents my own attempt to answer the question of how a respect for beauty might manifest itself in our approach to "work".
I have to warn you that it's written for me to understand, first and foremost, and not anyone else. I've modified some terms to make it more easily understood. Please don't post this to /r/badphilosophy.
One very interesting question the trip to Munich raised was to what extent an adoration of productive labour is warranted.
There are contrasting interpretative approaches to understanding labour.
The first is one of veneration, of respect and pride. We can point back to our development from animals living in indignity to noble farmers, and it all comes back to tool use and technological (and agricultural) innovation.
The labour is not just not symptom of our subversion to, but symbol of our dominance of and liberation from mortality and pain, but also an essential aspect of anthropological humanity. There is no human being without labour, one can say.
On the other side of the coin is humanist criticism of industrialization and its downsides. Production crushes the individual. Individuality is an attritive factor that is nothing but an inconvenience in the way of better efficiency.
Labour here isn't a spiritual connection between man and nature, but a destruction of personhood either by the demands of relentless technological progress or, depressingly, the extension of a cruel universe's bludgeoning arm upon man.
Then there's a synergy of the two, one that in my opinion isn't as strong as the others, which says that work is an approach to self-discipline and mastery, or some other kind of philosophical ladder to enlightenment and purpose in excellence.
This sees work as tool of the trade of self-discovery and -actualization.
Crucial distinction here now between work as tool of the trade for individual, personal enlightenment, and work as tool of the trade towards realization of a better beauty in nature, the idea that human individuality is in principle not important and should mainly move towards advancing abstract truth by instantiating it in beautiful machinery and physical order.
The Borg of Star Trek are an example of this.
One question one could ask is what motivates the people who believe in these ideas to work.
I think that to answer that question would be to directly answer the question of what beauty (goodness) is.
Interestingly enough, I don't think the mere usefulness gained from productive labour is foremost concern to anyone believing one of the above ideas.
Maybe it's about perpetuating through behavior an abstraction of something that must be, that is in harmony with the natural order of the universe.
Abstract truth can reveal itself in the universe itself. An example of this is organic life and the way it evolves. It is an embodiment of abstraction, literally, as it makes sense to define "life" as a type of reasonable pattern in the universe.
An abstract truth embodying itself in the universe is the case of it being sensible to classify phenomena as coherently following a simplified (and necessesarily derived from the most basic laws of physics) set of rules. A necessary consequence of this is that some things are not some other things. The notion of discretion implicitly arises.
In this case: life. It makes sense to think of individual organisms, it makes sense to invent the construct of "reproduction", and beautifully, taken in concert, it makes sense to arrive at the notion of "that which cannot exist, will not exist" in the patterns evident in what we call "evolution".
An example is to speak of the challenges faced, say, by a population of rabbits in a plain populated by wolves, even if such things as rabbits and wolves cannot be said to exist in a primitive sense in the universe.
But the abstraction is reasonable because wolves are coherent items of things. And these wolves are formed by evolution, which itself is yet a higher (or is it lower?) type of abstraction which can also be said to be reasonable, because it reasonably describes activity of reasonable things.
One interesting insight I have had is that the notion of discretion, the notion of things being distinct, is directly represented in the way we neurologically process visual stimuli. The cells in our retina are arranged in such a way as to optimally pick out lines, namely those borders upon things where it makes sense to differentiate them from other things.
Evolution itself, which is a reasonable abstraction to conceive of, has formed these eyes that recognize borders because it makes sense and it is reasonable to do so.
The universe itself has spoken, righteously, here, and proclaimed aloud that there are some things it makes sense conceiving of, and the proof is in the pudding of the eyeball.
Perhaps beauty is recognizing levels of abstraction that do not contradict each other, for reasonable things do not contradict themselves.
And the universe ruins that which contradicts itself existentially. Perhaps we are acting like stewards of the universe when we reject falsehood in favor of truth, because falsehood leads to ruin, and truth perpetuates and maintains itself in the universe.
One can say that experiencing beauty in order, symmetry, or efficiency is to experience truth that perpetuates itself.
Take, for instance, the fact that the beehive arranges itself into hexagonal cells. Of all tileable regular polygons, the hexagon is that one with the highest ratio of area to circumference. That is to say that it is exactly that polygon which is the most efficient to build a beehive with. Evolution has produced this austere mathematical truth on its own, and to recognize that and to experience that truth is in my opinion to directly experience beauty.