I thought this would be about what you actually do versus what you're perceived as doing. That's how I'd interpret these words. "Useful" means you do something

I thought this would be about what you actually do versus what you're perceived as doing. That's how I'd interpret these words. "Useful" means you do something that's beneficial to the company (or at least your management). "Valued" means that the company (or at least your management) believes you do something that's beneficial to them. In a well-run company, these match well. In many companies, they don't. Being valued is a big part of what drives advancement. If you're seen as beneficial then the company (or management) will usually try to keep you, and offer you opportunities to expand that benefit. If management sees and understands what you do, then being useful can suffice here. Otherwise, the gap between these things means you need to be political and ensure that your usefulness is seen and understood. The article seems to be talking about leverage, collaboration, and reach. Your usefulness on your own is limited. Beyond a certain point, the only way to become more useful is to start acting as a multiplier to other people's efforts. That's what it describes as "valued," but that really doesn't seem like the right word at all. I'd put it like this: success on the job depends on how you're seen, not just what you do. Be mindful of how those are connected at your particular position. And your impact, both in terms of practical outcomes and visibility, can only grow so much on your own. If you want to go beyond that, you need to work with others and multiply their work.