"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"
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 company is, the more aligned it will be, but still good to keep in mind the gatekeeper layers in an org and what their actual objective functions are.
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).
Isn't that what the original author is doing by using "useful" to mean "adds value" vs "valued" which means what you're saying it means in this context?
> layoffs that have snared well-respected, senior technologists. Apparently they were "valued", until they weren't"
See, I think it's more honest to say that 99% of employees are not valued at all, in that "the company" or top management actually care about what you think because you think it. People are kept around as long as the person 1-2 levels above them in management believe they have a positive short-term ROI, and everyone will be unceremoniously let go nearly instantly the moment they think they don't need you, whether you have just not distinguished yourself, or just basically at random when revenue misses dictate general cutbacks.
The author of the piece seems to place great personal significance specifically on his ideas mattering to the execs, but I think that may not be such an important thing to every personality type. I do mildly like being part of some 'strategic' conversations, but it's honestly more because I don't want the tech team to be blindsided by an impossible product requirement, and because I feel like I am good at identifying low-hanging fruit. But in terms of whether the company pursues one strategy or another at the highest level, that is hard, and you have to feel pretty bad when you make a bad bet. I don't think I need that at all to be happy.
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 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.
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.
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.