[leftbit]

A wildcard tends to focus on the problem solving and tries to cut on the fluff. So this feels certainly being more productive than dancing the process steps, striving for perfect code coverage by unit tests, nitpicking in code reviews and messing around with "cool" frameworks.

(I consider myself a "wilcard". Once joined a project for a sprint with a very elaborate development process. Spent about one hour on things I consider "work", the rest of the day was just "idling" to get this "work" past an armada of "quality gates". So yes, on my own I feel several times more productive then some process junkies while delivering "good enough" code, according to circumstances.)

[Jensson]

Organisations are built by interesting people on top of boring people.

Boring people makes for better building material, they are easy to work with, put them somewhere and they will do their task, without them you wont get large lasting organisations, the value cannot be realized without a combination of both.

[leftbit]

Quite so. As the article stated there are quite a lot of things wildcards abhor which the company needs done somehow anyway. Devs with another mentality.

But that wasn't my point in my previous comment. I was thinking more along the lines of "value for the customer" and the 80:20-rule.

I'm quite aware there's a strong correlation between code quality and the quality perceived by the customer, but if the customer didn't demand a certain percentage of code coverage or that every typo fix in a comment has to be done on a developer branch and code reviewed I see no value in these activities. So I feel more productive if I'm able to omit those steps.

Others probably think they're more productive than me because I don't get anything "really finished" by their standards.

[golemotron]

Are some people 10x more wildcard than other people?