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

311–320 of 372 posts

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

#311

Post by 3acctforcom »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #292
mjr00 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yeah. I've seen a lot of ICs get stuck at the "senior developer" level rather than progressing to team lead, staff/principal eng, etc because they were too focused on being useful, by cranking through Jira tickets and features, rather than thinking strategi…

As another commenter mentioned, what you are describing is simply strategic vs tactical thinking, and IMO those are much more accurate, standardized, and less judgmental terms for the situation than "useful" vs "valued".

Perception is reality. In my experience, if you're a "useful" employee to your management you are boxed into tactical. If you're "valued" then you are invited into strategic decision making.

It really doesn't matter how much strategic thinking you do if nobody cares.

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

#312

Post by hiatus »

schmookeeg wrote: post #280

I have traded within a quite tight comp band for my entire 30 year tech career. I am useful in general. I have been valued by being offered "promotions" and "strategic instead of tactical" positions, but I always chafe. I enjoy the work. I enjoy solving specific problems in tech. I do not enjoy the "business" of tech and have no interest in any of it. I definitely have inadequate drive to grow a business and make oth…

An employee is just a contractor with one client.

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

#313

Post by schmookeeg »

chairmansteve wrote: post #293
MichaelZuo wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to employers… even high performers need comforting lies some of the time. (and middling performers a lot more) I don’t think anyone (excluding the literally deranged) spends their day trying to maximize the number of lies directed at employees.

And also to be fair to employers. A decent amount of employees are not really "doers". Perhaps they contribute in other ways.

Sadly my experience has been that "Perhaps" there is doing more work than it can bear :)

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

#314

Post by schmookeeg »

kbenson wrote: post #285
schmookeeg wrote: post #280

I have traded within a quite tight comp band for my entire 30 year tech career. I am useful in general. I have been valued by being offered "promotions" and "strategic instead of tactical" positions, but I always chafe. I enjoy the work. I enjoy solving specific problems in tech. I do not enjoy the "business" of tech and have no interest in any of it. I definitely have inadequate drive to grow a business and make oth…

If you haven't read it already, I highly recommend reading The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office” . It's not that it maps to reality perfectly, but it's an interesting lens through which to look at work and your relation to it. It helped me soften my view on some of my coworkers by understanding their motivations better, and also helped me to accept a point of view much more similar to yours a…

That sounds fascinating, and I worry it will be "humor that is way more documentary than I am at all comfortable with", like, say, Office Space or Idiocracy. :)

Great timing, though, I've been in need of a new read and I'm a Ricky Gervais fan. Thanks!

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

#315

Post by k3vinw »

einpoklum wrote: post #294
k3vinw wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious. What kind of work would management ignore or look at negatively? If the work needs done, shouldn’t you be able to justify to management? For example, by doing X this will improve our efficiency in performing Y by 80% and help us achieve our goal by reducing time wasted on Z.

> "this will improve our efficiency in performing Y by 80%" Even if we took your example: Suppose it will improve the efficiency based on other, additional, work that would take a long while, and it is not trivial to understand why. > "help us achieve our goal by reducing time wasted on Z." Manager may well tell you: * "I never allocate time for Z, only for concrete project goals. And nobody ever complains about wast…

What you’re describing is micro management and indicative of a toxic work environment.

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

#316

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

phkahler wrote: post #203
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll clarify, because, at least in my read of it, I am saying something very different than the author. 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…

There's a distinction the author was making. If we ignore the words used "useful" and "valuable", can you see the distinction in the way a company may view people? I'm not sure you even think beyond "useful" and "even more useful". I'm not sure you see it as more than a difference in degree, when the author is claiming it's a difference in kind.

"Valued" != "valuable". "Valued" is emotional, "valuable" is transactional, as is "useful".

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

#317

Post by fragmede »

asielen wrote: post #246
Swizec wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. “People don’t remember who went to grab drinks on a Tuesday, but they’ll remember who helped them close a million dollar deal and get a huge bonus” Give your coworkers superpowers and opportunities will flow.

"People don’t remember who went to grab drinks on a Tuesday, but they’ll remember who helped them close a million dollar deal and get a huge bonus” Outside of sales and senior leadership I don't agree with this statement. Maybe it is just because I've reached a time in my life where I could care less about the hustle and just want a job where it can solve interesting problems for no more than 8 hours a day. And then…

I think the point is going for drinks gets you a pat on the back at bonus time but deal support gets you a more sizable bump.

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

#318

Post by jmyeet »

schmookeeg wrote: post #280

I have traded within a quite tight comp band for my entire 30 year tech career. I am useful in general. I have been valued by being offered "promotions" and "strategic instead of tactical" positions, but I always chafe. I enjoy the work. I enjoy solving specific problems in tech. I do not enjoy the "business" of tech and have no interest in any of it. I definitely have inadequate drive to grow a business and make oth…

I've thought about this issue a lot. What's become clear to me later in life is that I have ADHD and probably autism. This has not only hindered social relationships, it's lethal to your career to.

Why? Because a bit of autism tends to make you good at your job but allistic people can always seemingly tell you're "off", no matter how well you (try and) mask.

And ultimately career progression is a social game. It's not about being good at your job. It's about whether people like you. Sure there are some outliers who get far on technical ability but they succeed in spite of this not because of it.

So when you say you don't enjoy the "business" of tech, it means you've reached your ceiling where it requires influencing other people as direct reports, as a tech leader or both.

If you're in this boat, and a lot of tech people are IME, then my advice is to make your bag while you can because you will be the first to be discarded and you will suffer at the dark, ugly side of tech, which is ageism.

Avoiding ageism is largely a social exercise. If the leadership at your company likes you, they'll keep you. If they don't, they won't. You'll find yourself randomly picked on a round of layoffs sooner or later.

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

#319

Post by fragmede »

Swizec wrote: post #281
asielen wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People don’t remember who went to grab drinks on a Tuesday, but they’ll remember who helped them close a million dollar deal and get a huge bonus” Outside of sales and senior leadership I don't agree with this statement. Maybe it is just because I've reached a time in my life where I could care less about the hustle and just want a job where it can solve interesting problems for no more than 8 hours a day. And then…

> but at some point relationships are more important than dollars Sure. Who do you have a better relationship with: That engineer who drops everything they're doing to come help you with a gnarly bug when asked, or the dude who's always at happy hour but nowhere to be seen when you need something?

but who are you gonna go to first when there's a gnarly bug? the guy you had drinks with last night, or anybody else?

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

#320

Post by mjr00 »

kmoser wrote: post #289
mjr00 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yeah. I've seen a lot of ICs get stuck at the "senior developer" level rather than progressing to team lead, staff/principal eng, etc because they were too focused on being useful, by cranking through Jira tickets and features, rather than thinking strategi…

I think you're twisting the original article's meaning of "useful" and "valuable." Useful means you are able to contribute meaningfully. Valuable means you are perceived as being able to provide value to the company (in this case by being useful), and are treated accordingly. An engineer who does their job so well that they reduce everyone's workload by automating things and showing others how to do some of their tas…

I didn't interpret the article that way.

> 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.

I take this to mean "usefulness" is: you have a tactical role in the company, where you are able to perform necessary tasks. If you can perform them with little supervision, you are very useful.

However, "value" is eliminating those gaps entirely. Instead of being the on-call person who fixes every issue, which is undeniably useful, you fix the root causes so those issues don't happen. This does make you less useful, by definition, because fewer on-call issues means there's fewer reasons to keep you around. But assuming you also do an ok job of communicating what you've done, and your bosses aren't totally clueless, people will recognize this as valuable. The fact that you were able to identify a systemic issue and address it is what makes you valuable, and it will get you invited into broader technically strategic discussions. In theory, at least.

Again these are just my interpretation of useful vs valuable as far as the article's definition. I don't agree with the terms in a broader sense.

Post reply on HN