> Furthermore, Wildcards thrive with new tasks and suffer from repetitive ones. They also have a hard time staying outwardly organized.
That’s an ADHD signature. I’d say huge chunk of article describes “managed” ADHD.
I have an argument against having a chaotic wildcard m. It had been imprinted into me that (from management perspective) consistency of result is more important than its brilliance. I.e. it’s better to have consistent low performer than performer who produced great results from time to time.
In general, I think it is true, but experience in IT shows that low performers can’t achieve breakthroughs, so at least few chaos bringers are a healthy choice.
Something I’ve seen repeatedly is that chaos bringers are expected to fit into the consistent results bin in a rigid process when it might be more effective to lock them in a room with a hard problem for a month.
I’d expect adhd peeps to work best in a rapidly shifting environment full of emergencies. Being locked in a room for a month with the same problem is not my idea of a fun time.
If the problem is super interesting and involves a bunch of learning and novel problem solving, it would be a pretty fun time for me. Perhaps just for two weeks though, a month might be too long.
That’s an ADHD signature. I’d say huge chunk of article describes “managed” ADHD.
I have an argument against having a chaotic wildcard m. It had been imprinted into me that (from management perspective) consistency of result is more important than its brilliance. I.e. it’s better to have consistent low performer than performer who produced great results from time to time.
In general, I think it is true, but experience in IT shows that low performers can’t achieve breakthroughs, so at least few chaos bringers are a healthy choice.