Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If you are useful, it doesn't mean you are valued

betterthanrandom.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 372 posts

Re: If you are useful, it doesn't mean you are valued

#211

Post by nand_gate »

47282847 wrote: post #46

“ 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…

My experiences track this, being lazy and clever is a cheat code in many ways.

Re: If you are useful, it doesn't mean you are valued

#212

Post by afiodorov »

The article's 'useful vs. valued' distinction is spot on, and for me, it largely hinges on perceived replaceability.

Being a diligent workhorse makes you 'useful' - you're reliably closing tickets. But 'valued' often means bringing innovation or strategic foresight that's harder to replicate.

Sometimes, too much visible grind on routine tasks can almost cap your perceived value. It reminds me of the senior dev whose Jira updates might be terse — like 'Continuing research on core problem' — for days. They're not judged on daily ticket volume, but on the eventual breakthrough or critical insight that unblocks everyone or defines the next big thing. That signals a different kind of leverage and indispensability than just high output.

Re: If you are useful, it doesn't mean you are valued

#213

Post by mathgeek »

osigurdson wrote: post #190
firesteelrain wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 think the author is over indexing on the value that the company brings to its customers and the value that an employee beings to the company - as if there is just a kind of lossless value roll up going on here. In reality, there are many humans in the mix - various gatekeepers with all kinds of objective functions that are not necessarily aligned with the overall stated objective of the company. The better a compan…

I think it's worth differentiating between value (i.e. having value) and valued (i.e. the people who control your future at a company seeing value in your work, whether or not it reflects reality).

Re: If you are useful, it doesn't mean you are valued

#214

Post by steveBK123 »

lovich wrote: post #131
steveBK123 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's a grid of 4 types of people, the two boxes of "not useful" are usually let go first

You respect your managers a lot more than I would. The not valued column is let go first via the fact that the value function is what decides if their managers care or not

Good points and maybe expressed to generally by me.

I suspect who is laid off first is more to do with the lifecycle of the company actually, having been in high/low/negative growth environments myself.

I have found in negative growth environments, managers tend to get pretty sober about who is actually useful not just valued, and cut accordingly. Negative growth environments is also when more cuts happen, with generally a worse job hunting environment if you are cut.

But in frivolous times, yes, I've seen plenty of useful people get cut.. but they always bounce back better anyway.

Re: If you are useful, it doesn't mean you are valued

#215

Post by whatnow37373 »

latency-guy2 wrote: post #202
whatnow37373 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s strange, because capitalism is the one that thinks infinity is real. Also it’s trying to break nature, quite literally given the state of our climate. There are other ways to cooperate that don’t depend on sociopathy and infighting.

> That’s strange, because capitalism is the one that thinks infinity is real. Your rhetoric doesn't pass. You contradict yourself in a single turn. Can't cite "scarcity" and "infinity" powers this fictional economic system you thought of as "capitalism".

You miss the point. It’s not I don’t believe in scarcity or the second law of thermodynamics, it’s that I critique capitalism’s handing of it that is by its very nature exploitative, short-sighted and unsustainable. It needs various and extensive guardrails to be functional at all otherwise it would have destroyed us already.

It’s the classic “capitalism is built on scarcity but behaves as if infinite growth is possible”-critique. There are interesting responses to that but “it’s contradictory” ain’t one of them.

Re: If you are useful, it doesn't mean you are valued

#216

Post by evilduck »

afiodorov wrote: post #212

The article's 'useful vs. valued' distinction is spot on, and for me, it largely hinges on perceived replaceability. Being a diligent workhorse makes you 'useful' - you're reliably closing tickets. But 'valued' often means bringing innovation or strategic foresight that's harder to replicate. Sometimes, too much visible grind on routine tasks can almost cap your perceived value. It reminds me of the senior dev whose…

> like 'Continuing research on core problem' — for days

I've seen these tickets a bunch.

They have two types of authors, the first is the person flailing to accomplish anything and hoping that they can recruit someone else to figure it out or to take it over before they're found out. The second is the person who is failing to communicate what strategies they're using to solve the problem. Neither person is all that valuable, though the second type will at least be useful to someone who will eventually take credit for their work.

Re: If you are useful, it doesn't mean you are valued

#219

Post by eurekin »

ionwake wrote: post #139
eurekin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However I will never forget how the one man, who never actually did any work, who interrupted everyone, and who made these accusations, was basically doing everything he could do "seem like he had a job". Judging from your description, you could actually be a threat to his position. So that might be a preemptive strike.

I had not even thought of that! I did accidentally after a 10 hour day - slip for for half a second and said "what!?!?" it was less than a second and I was half way through leaving - it was after working hours, it was a big, complex question and interrupted my flow brashly, I didnt even realise I had said it in the wrong tone and that other poeple may have heard it. I immediately did my best to answer the question, b…

Another wild, unsubstantiated guess... The reason for him interrupting others, might be the stress caused by not understanding what's being said, but having to hold the professional image

Re: If you are useful, it doesn't mean you are valued

#220

Post by itsoktocry »

bravesoul2 wrote: post #11

I have always been useful not valued, worked at 8 or more places. Only people who value me are family. Businesses don't. You find out pretty quick: suddenly on PIP, or get bullied thereafter because you phrased something slightly off in a Jira comment. If I can get paid and treated OK, I see that as good. Don't put stock in business relationships. Try to have good ones but put stock in ... assets, family, health, etc…

>Don't put stock in business relationships.

If this is your mentality, is it any wonder you aren't valued?

People post things like this and I'm not sure they have any emotional intelligence whatsoever. Sure, your work/job doesn't have to be your entire life. But what about a little pride in what you're doing? Working with smart people towards a goal to do something useful?

If your mentality is "just show up for work, do what they ask and go home" then it should be no surprise you're at the top of the list to get laid off. I wouldn't want to work with a person who "puts no stock in business relationships".

Post reply on HN