181–190 of 372 posts
This article is heavy on emotional persuation, but rationally, it is not even operationally defining the terms. It posits the existence of 2 categories of employees, when, it is hard to know if they even exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked as a small elite unit in a world leading airline, team of about 5 poeple that went down to basically 1 ( after I was finally labelled as "difficult to work with" - ( I actually was always quiet calm friendly used to working in critical teams and worked basically close to 12 hour days. Eventually a deadline was missed and "someone had to be blamed". Having worked in countless companies I was ready for this an…
I am in my mid forties. I have always walked away the moment I have been yelled at any job. Each time I have done this I had zero dollars in the bank. That is a privilege I give to my family, and they don't even use it. If it is a big organization walk straight to HR or go home and call a lawyer.
I feel like "useful" and "valued" are very poor terms for the situations described in the article. I think a much better explanation is that just because you may excel in one role (and be recognized as such) does not necessarily mean you'll excel in another role. And heck, I think it's important to recognize these qualities and limitations in yourself . Calling this being "useful" or "valued" puts an emotional/moral…
That's an entirely different set of metrics than determining "value". Being valuable means being a trusted strategic voice to some portion of the leadership, and being recognized for contributions that go beyond (horizontally or diagonally) the employee's job description. In many cases, this value = trust relationship is evidenced by how frequently senior managers bring former employees with them when joining new firms, or how small & tight knit the community is for specialty roles/functions.
Lots of fresh grads and junior staff focus 99% on being useful, but career advancement beyond the first one or two promotions depends MUCH more on being valued.
I feel like "useful" and "valued" are very poor terms for the situations described in the article. I think a much better explanation is that just because you may excel in one role (and be recognized as such) does not necessarily mean you'll excel in another role. And heck, I think it's important to recognize these qualities and limitations in yourself . Calling this being "useful" or "valued" puts an emotional/moral…
"Just look at lots of the recent tech layoffs that have snared well-respected, senior technologists. Apparently they were "valued", until they weren't" You are actually agreeing with the author here. Rephrase that to "Apparently they were useful, until they weren't" They weren't valued. I think the author is apt in their observation.
I feel like "useful" and "valued" are very poor terms for the situations described in the article. I think a much better explanation is that just because you may excel in one role (and be recognized as such) does not necessarily mean you'll excel in another role. And heck, I think it's important to recognize these qualities and limitations in yourself . Calling this being "useful" or "valued" puts an emotional/moral…
I agree that I think "value" might be the wrong term in the essay. I think there is an emotional/moral spin on "value" though. Too many workers are overworked and underpaid. If someone is undervalued, the answer isn't to give them more responsibilities (without a commensurate bump in pay). The answer is to pay your workers properly. The article touches on this, but doesn't make the connection. Beyond that, in my expe…
I think this is very hard to measure, particularly from our outside perspective. I understand it may be more of a worldview axiom than a fact, and will get a chorus of nods in a group conversation, but I think it should be tested more like a fact than an axiom.
“ I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental cla…
I feel like "useful" and "valued" are very poor terms for the situations described in the article. I think a much better explanation is that just because you may excel in one role (and be recognized as such) does not necessarily mean you'll excel in another role. And heck, I think it's important to recognize these qualities and limitations in yourself . Calling this being "useful" or "valued" puts an emotional/moral…
"Just look at lots of the recent tech layoffs that have snared well-respected, senior technologists. Apparently they were "valued", until they weren't" You are actually agreeing with the author here. Rephrase that to "Apparently they were useful, until they weren't" They weren't valued. I think the author is apt in their observation.
I was using "valued" in scare quotes that sentence you quoted - yes, I agree, the literal meaning of what I was saying is that they were useful until they weren't.
But, thus, I think it's important to understand that, at least from a business perspective, they were never "valued", and so I don't think it's helpful to think of things in those terms - again, I think that term implies a, well, value judgement that is inappropriate in the context.
By analogy, what I'm trying to say is similar to the difference between using the words "team" and "family" in a business context. I think using team is fine - teams want to win, and they cut people all the time if they don't have the right skills to help them win. Using the word "family" is simply bullshit, and it's just manipulation by business owners to try to get more work out of employees.
So my advice is to not ever think of yourself as "valued" in business. Remember that you are always just useful depending on the context of your role, your skills, and the current business environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost like you could create a 2 x 2 matrix of Useful Vs Valued - Not Useful, Not Valued: Get good or change jobs/industries. - Not Useful, Valued: talks a good game (or is doing useful stuff that is not apparent) -Useful, Not Valued: Could be useful at non-strategic stuff, or does good work without self-marketing, or has bad management and needs to leave. - Useful, Valued: Ideal situation.
> does good work without self-marketing I kinda feel called out. My work should speak for itself. It often does, but I will always forget it when it comes time to speak of myself nicely. I simply do not care to self-promote. It feels vain and vanity is one of the most useless things possible to me. Donald Trump is about 98% vanity, if you want to see what vanity is. Not being able to actually cite the things I’ve don…
I shudder at the thought of becoming one of those gobshites that asks senior management questions in townhalls like "How do you stay so grounded with all the awesome responsibility you are dealing with?"
There a few things that motivated me to start self publicising a bit more:
1) A Chris Williamson podcast where he said "Shy bairns get nowt" and also "Somewhere there is someone with half your talent and twice your confidence earning 10x your salary."
2) I email all my senior stakeholders (not just my line manager) details of the major projects I am working on. I try and frame this as an "FYI" and an offer for them to add extra context or re-align my priorities.
3) You can try this approach as well: https://jvns.ca/blog/brag-documents/
I feel like "useful" and "valued" are very poor terms for the situations described in the article. I think a much better explanation is that just because you may excel in one role (and be recognized as such) does not necessarily mean you'll excel in another role. And heck, I think it's important to recognize these qualities and limitations in yourself . Calling this being "useful" or "valued" puts an emotional/moral…
"Just look at lots of the recent tech layoffs that have snared well-respected, senior technologists. Apparently they were "valued", until they weren't" You are actually agreeing with the author here. Rephrase that to "Apparently they were useful, until they weren't" They weren't valued. I think the author is apt in their observation.