There exists in the world a conflict. That is too narrow. There exist in the world many conflicts. They are all around us, and many are driven by economic wants and needs. It is likely that some desire for resources drives much of human conflict.
We see it in our daily lives. Our desires for consumption are constrained by our ability to pay. We may each have chateaubriand tastes, but find ourselves saddled with peanut butter budgets. We may want to watch television every evening, but find ourselves with busy with other tasks instead. Perhaps we wish to live 10 minutes from work and find that such convenient housing is beyond our means, or beyond our preferences (highrise or single-family, yard, etc.). We will all make economic choices, resolving conflicts. There will be no "perfect fit," but merely outcomes, compromises, and effort.
Many of these will be due to personal choices. One might argue that I do not "need" a yard, and that my decision to live where I can have one is my personal choice. From there, you might conclude that my lack of time in the evening is merely a consequence of my yard choice and the hour-plus commute in which I elected to acquiesce. Choices. Challenges, and conflict. We could build a multitude of similar models that impact management, business, and employment. And through it all, we will make compromises. Those may burden us, and possibly no one around us will understand those burdens.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently ran an interesting article The silent struggles of workers with ADHD, on their "Equality Matters" platform. This leads with the premise that people are different, and can perhaps be categorized into the "neurotypical" and those who are not, because of challenges like "attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder" (ADHD). The article's tone is somewhat challenging with this categorization. The idea of categorizing people in today's world is itself challenged.
The author leads through a description of the distinctions of ADHD, focusing on two employees. One worker had been laid off, and "wasn't surprised." There is description of "underperformance" and "essential job duties," missed deadlines, tardiness, and more. One worker describes not being "detail-oriented," admits to challenges with "follow through," and "fall(ing) behind on his projects." These were not "conscious" decisions, according to the employee, but ADHD.
While the article laments the volume of adults who suffer from this (2.58%), it contends that "many people remain undiagnosed," and suggests disparities in diagnosis. The article laments the impacts of being non-neurotypical and suggests, less than subtly, that people are being treated equally in the workplace. That is, they are being expected to perform work just like everyone else. Equality. That, the suggestion is, lacks fairness for those with such a diagnosis or perhaps those with the challenges, diagnosed or not. But, we are all different, and so "just like everyone else" is likely a false premise.
Thus, the discussion may seem to evolve from the platform title of equality into a discussion more directed at equity. That is reminiscent of the broad tendencies today to discuss workplace topics like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (October 2022), colloquially labeled DE&I. There is significant discussion of these in the employment world currently. In fact, the article coincidentally suggests that ADHD is an issue of diversity, "neurodiversity" that is. An expert is quoted describing that ADHD is not so much a "disorder," but is a "different kind of brain." We are all, at our cores, different.
There is description of supervisors perceiving those with ADHD as "lazy, disengaged or incapable." And there is lamentation that traits and behaviors may impact someone's employment, a particular job, or career alternatives in the broadest sense. There is discussion of struggle, failing to meet deadlines and the "feeling of being incapable of performing as expected." The author labels supervisor conclusions as "perceptions," and suggests that those conclusions may be misplaced.
A major focus of the discussion is the impact of these challenges on the worker's "self-judgment" and "knock-on effects that can send people with ADHD into negative emotional states." Those who are criticized for job performance can experience erosion of "self-confidence and emotional wellbeing." And, the implications seem to suggest either sharing the diagnosis with the employer in hopes of accommodation or "masking" and "restraining" in an effort "just to fit in." I would suggest that this description might be aptly employed with many people, not just the "non-neurotypical."
And, the circle returns to the original point of economics in our daily lives. Just as one might choose a living arrangement, they choose who to employ, how to supervise, and how to manage. Similarly, they choose where to work, occupation, and other details. Not every job or profession is right for every employee, and not every employee is right for every employer. The list goes on. Differences abound. Perfection is illusory. Life brings challenges.
I have found that there are many challenges in the workplace. They come from pressures real and imagined, deadlines rational and not, and more. Each business is in competition with many others who would as soon perform your tasks, and will offer the customer lower prices, promises of greater quality, etc. We've all seen the ads. Business is a competition for customers. Work is a competition for the job. There are economic realities no different than the choices we each make in our personal lives (highrise or yard).
Businesses similarly compete for employees. And, in the grand scheme, those employees come in all shapes and sizes. More importantly, I learned long ago, those employees each come with a fair quantity of blemishes and challenges. You may hypothetically find the perfect employee, and then face the reality that every business in your industry that is persistently trying to woo your customers will also strive mightily to woo that employee. And, you might just find in time that the employee is not actually perfect after all (if in no other way imperfect, their constant wooing may become distracting).
Instead, it is likely that each of us brings to the workplace strengths and weaknesses. At all levels of labor and management, in all aspects of production, marketing, evaluation, and more, workers will have challenges. There will be learning curves, motivation issues, persistence issues (boredom, distraction), and more. In the end, success for employee and employer are inextricably interwoven. The world of work is symbiotic, and each succeeds only through the success of the other.
That all said, we will not each fit into every role. There will be managers for whom we will not work, and employees that we cannot tolerate. There will be tasks left incomplete, deadlines missed, and underperformance (for us all, employers and employees). But, in the spirit of the DE&I discussion, there will be value (benefits) in each workplace, in each worker, and finding the fit will be challenging. But, what about business is not? There is room to discuss diversity in the workplace.
However, I have also come to conclude that people are different. They (we) each present with a conglomeration of skills, abilities, and aspirations intermingled with an equally vast array of personal challenges, shortcomings, and failures. Perfection only exists in theory, and the sooner we grasp that the better. This is not in any way to minimize that various challenges may be more troubling than others. But it is to suggest that somehow employers come to value what an employee does bring to the job, and has to strive to be accepting, flexible, and patient with the array of challenges included in that package. ADHD is a valid and worthy example, but frankly does not seem unique.
