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

The piece is good but I think the primary segmentation is not 'useful' vs 'valued', it is strategic vs. tactical.

The author actually realizes this but did not nail this idea to the church door as part of his manifesto.

      >Being valued, on the other hand, means that you are brought into
      >more conversations, not just to execute, but to help shape the
      > direction. This comes with opportunities to grow and contribute
      > in ways that are meaningful to you and the business.

The first part is not being 'valued'; this is being a 'useful strategically'.

The second part - "opportunities to grow and contribute in ways that are meaningful to you and the business." - that is being 'valued strategically'

      > Being useful means that you are good at getting things done in a
      > specific area, so that people above you can delegate that
      > completely. You are reliable, efficient, maybe even
      > indispensable in the short term. But you are seen primarily as a gap-filler,
      > someone who delivers on tasks that have to be done but are not
      > necessarily a core component of the company strategy. “Take care
      > of that and don’t screw up” is your mission, and the fewer
      > headaches you create for your leadership chain, the bigger the rewards.

The first is not being 'useful'; this is being a 'useful tactically'.

The second part, "Take care of that and don’t screw up” is your mission, and the fewer headaches you create for your leadership chain, the bigger the rewards." is being 'valued tactically'.

So, the theory is every member of staff is dropped BOTH a 'useful' and 'valued' bucket for tactical work and for strategic work.

ie: - one can be useful or not useful for strategic or tactical work or both - one can be valued or not valued for strategic or tactical work or both

A couple of counterpoints:

1. You can,unfortunately, be useful strategically and not be valued. Think about the hachet man every leader of a large organization has - the guy who does the layoffs. That slot is useful strategically but can be filled by almost anyone - it is not valued by the org.

2. You can, fortunately, be useful tactically, useless strategically, and be be very very valued in an organization. Best examples of this are folks who are very very good at running operations. Think about a good truck dispatcher, or a 911 operator or an air traffic controller. 90% of their job is effective tactical execution - dealing with this emerging situation right now effectively and efficiently. That is highly valuable to organizations.

Also note that every org needs strategy people and tactical people for long and short term.

One is not better than the other. They are just different.

And there are lots of very highly paid tactical roles, sometimes better paid, that are more challenging and more interesting than any strategy role.

These tend to be "do this or fix this thing right now efficiently and effectively" jobs.

For example, almost any practicing medial role is a tactical one - ER doctor (fix this sick person right now) or controllers for real time stuff - concert and live TV producers (make this thing look good right now), air traffic controllers (keep these planes safe right now) etc etc.

So, net net, pick you spot - tactical vs strategic or both, useful vs. valuable or both - get good at it and then may the odds always be in your favor.

I think both of these things can be true at the same time - the issue with a lot of utility-based value is that it often comes in the form of unsustainable heroism. My capacity to feed back interesting thoughts about product and strategy in domains I'm familiar with is probably greater than your capacity or desire to consume them, but my capacity to do various forms of high-precision grunt work (set up configurations for clients, misc. project work, ship XYZ feature into the product) is much easier to consume and ultimately overload.

Closing that million dollar deal as a sprint might be memorable, but being the go-to configurator for Azure cloud services isn't, and the difference between heroic level systems management and mediocre button clicker requires hard squinting if you're non-technical. Hell, I'm technical and would struggle to tell the difference just because IT isn't usually my domain.

And if the person you're working with has no appreciation of what an average performance is, any mistake will be seen as a defect even if what you're doing is otherwise heroic.

That was a while ago sadly, I just decided to learn my lesson and move on. Tough to square with the loss of my savings but is what it is

Kept up my certs and all, still do tech stuff all them time, think I'll have a job even if it's minimum wage and underemployment at some point

This is explicit strategy companies use. To be expected

I'm pretty sure people living off capital don't have that problem. It just won't be you.