# Challenges, Strengths, and Strategies of Software Engineers with ADHD: A
Case Study

Grischa Liebel<EMAIL_ADDRESS>0000-0002-3884-815X School of Technology,
Reykjavik UniversityReykjavikIceland ,  Noah Langlois
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>ISAE-ENSMAPoitiersFrance and  Kiev Gama
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE)RecifeBrazil

(2018)

###### Abstract.

Neurodiversity describes brain function variation in individuals, including
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Autism spectrum disorder.
Neurodivergent individuals both experience challenges and exhibit strengths in
the workplace. As an important disorder included under the neurodiversity
term, an estimated 5.0% to 7.1% of the world population have ADHD. However,
existing studies involving ADHD in the workplace are of general nature and do
not focus on software engineering (SE) activities. To address this gap, we
performed an exploratory qualitative case study on the experiences of people
with ADHD working in SE. We find that people with ADHD struggle with several
important SE-related activities, e.g., task organisation and estimation,
attention to work, relation to others. Furthermore, they experience issues
with physical and mental health. In terms of strengths, they exhibit, e.g.,
increased creative skills, perform well when solving puzzles, and have the
capability to think ahead. Our findings align well with existing clinical ADHD
research, and have important implications to SE practice.
Lay Abstract – Neurodiversity describes brain function variation in
individuals, such as Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and
Autism spectrum disorder. People included under this term often experience
problems in their work, e.g., due to differences in communication or
behaviour, but also exhibit strengths compared to people without these
disorders. To better include them, it is essential that we understand how
these challenges and strengths manifest in different professions. There is
currently only initial research on how neurodiversity affects professionals in
software engineering (SE), an environment characterised by a rapid pace,
frequent change, and intense collaborative work. Therefore, we studied the
strengths, challenges, and strategies of SE professionals with ADHD, a
disorder affecting approximately 5.0% to 7.1% of the world population. We find
that these professionals perceive many common SE activities as challenging,
e.g., estimating how long tasks take, or maintaining focus. Interestingly,
they also exhibit a number of strengths that are highly relevant to the SE
industry, such as increased creativity and systems thinking. Based on our
findings, we provide several recommendations on how SE companies can better
support employees with ADHD.

Neurodiversity, ADHD, Inclusion, Diversity, Case Study

††copyright: acmcopyright††journalyear: 2018††doi:
XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX††conference: Make sure to enter the correct conference title
from your rights confirmation emai; June 03–05, 2018; Woodstock, NY††price:
15.00††isbn: 978-1-4503-XXXX-X/18/06††ccs: Software and its engineering
Software creation and management††ccs: Software and its engineering
Collaboration in software development††ccs: Human-centered computing Empirical
studies in collaborative and social computing††ccs: Social and professional
topics People with disabilities

##  1\. Introduction

Neurodiversity describes variation in brain function among individuals,
including conditions such as Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
and Autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Neurodivergent individuals face
substantial barriers in society, e.g., due to difficulties or differences in
communication, reading or writing difficulties, or reduced attention span
(Equality and Participation Unit, UCU, 2022). However, the concept of
neurodiversity emphasises the value and strengths of individuals with
neurological differences rather than focusing on their weaknesses (Doyle,
2020).

While computer-related jobs are often considered fitting for neurodivergent
individuals or matching their interest profiles (Austin and Pisano, 2017),
there is only initial understanding of how they perform in software
engineering (SE) (Morris et al., 2015; Gama and Lacerda, 2023). These
preliminary studies provide a broader perspective on neurodiversity, without
investigating more deeply any of those disorders. To improve inclusion in SE,
the particular challenges and strengths of each group need to be better
understood. For instance, in terms of creativity, individuals who report
higher rates of ADHD symptoms outperform those with lower self-reported ADHD
symptoms in divergent thinking tasks (Hoogman et al., 2020).

As an important disorder included under the neurodiversity term, an estimated
5.0% to 7.1% of the world population (Willcutt, 2012; Polanczyk et al., 2007)
have ADHD. In the 2022 Stack Overflow Developer Survey (StackOverflow, 2022),
the top rank on the neurodiversity question consisted of 10.57% of respondents
(70K developers) indicating they have a concentration and/or memory disorder
(e.g., ADHD). Although limited compared to studies with children, research on
ADHD in adults has grown in recent decades, with strong evidence suggesting
that ADHD manifests differently in adults and children (Barkley et al., 2010).
This leads to struggles during college, professional activities and personal
relationships (Fleming and McMahon, 2012; Barkley et al., 2010). Adults with
ADHD often struggle to keep a steady job and tend to switch jobs more often,
either because of layoffs due to low-rated work performance or due to
impulsivity in quitting or switching jobs (Fleming and McMahon, 2012). Studies
involving ADHD in the workplace, e.g., (Sarkis, 2014; Doyle, 2020), are
typically of general nature and do not focus on SE activities. To address this
gap, we performed an exploratory qualitative case study on the experiences of
people with ADHD working in SE. Our goal was to understand their challenges,
strengths, and the strategies they use to address their challenges.
Specifically, we answer the following research questions:

  1. RQ1:

What challenges and strengths do people with ADHD experience in SE-related
activities?

  2. RQ2:

What strategies do people with ADHD apply to cope with their challenges?

We extracted 15 challenges, 8 strengths, and 12 strategies from 19 interviews
and discussed their implications with 4 experienced managers working in SE. We
found that our interviewees struggle with task organisation and estimation,
attention to work, relation to others, and with physical and mental health. In
terms of strengths, they, e.g., exhibit increased creative skills, perform
well when solving puzzles or exploring novel topics, have the tendency to have
broad interests and the capability to think ahead. These findings are aligned
with clinical literature on ADHD and we map them to the software engineering
practice. The interview instruments as well as six anonymised interview
transcripts are available in the
dataset111https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414120 accompanying this
publication.

##  2\. Background & Related Work

###  2.1. Executive Functions and Self-Regulation

ADHD is a long-lasting condition that affects various aspects of life from
childhood to adulthood. Recent understandings see it as a disorder of self-
regulation and its underlying executive functioning (Barkley, 2006). Executive
function (EF) is an umbrella term used for a range of hypothesised cognitive
processes, including planning, working memory, attention, inhibition
(Goldstein et al., 2014). These cognitive processes have been classified as
“cool” EFs, while “hot” EFs are related to emotional and affective aspects of
cognition that also involve rewards and motivations (Zelazo and Müller, 2002).
For instance, this leads to the typical characteristic of delay aversion
(Sonuga-Barke et al., 1992) found in many individuals with ADHD, i.e., a
preference for immediate over delayed rewards. Zelazo and Müller (Zelazo and
Müller, 2002) state that ADHD literature often conflates hot and cool EF or
considers EF and cool EF to be synonyms. Popular symptoms of ADHD are often
limited to a perspective around hyperactivity and attention, mostly because of
the acronym and the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)222The
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders, by the American
Psychiatric Association (APA), serves as the principal authority for
psychiatric diagnoses. Although being used worldwide, it has attracted
criticism about its role in processes of medicalization of mental illness
(Pickersgill, 2014). Such simplification on the perspective of EF limited to
cognition restricts discussion on other impairments of individuals with ADHD.
A little known difficulty in temporal processing is linked to vital roles of
cool EFs, such as attention, inhibition, and working memory in time processing
(Fleming and McMahon, 2012). The lesser known hot EFs are linked to the
emotional dysregulation aspect (Shaw et al., 2014), with consequences such as
quick temper or a “short fuse”; low frustration tolerance; rapid or intense
mood swings and heightened emotional reactivity that are related to self-
regulation.

Vohs and Baumeister (Vohs and Baumeister, 2004) used the analogy of a
thermostat that adjusts to maintain room temperature, stating that self-
regulation refers to the ability of an individual to control or adjust their
own behaviours, emotions, and responses to align with certain standards or
goals. This control can be both conscious and unconscious, and encompasses
various aspects, including regulating thoughts, emotions, impulses, appetites,
task performances, and attention. Barkley (Barkley, 2011) recognizes that EF
and self-regulation share a similar definition, and that behavioural
inhibition is essential to their performance. His theory suggests that ADHD is
primarily linked to a deficit in such inhibition (Antshel et al., 2014). This
condition causes a chain reaction of issues in other EFs, making individuals
experience forgetfulness, challenges with time management, and difficulty
planning for the future. This affects their ability to organise actions over
time and sequence complex tasks directed towards future goals. The authors
also reinforce challenges in emotional and motivational self-regulation,
leading to, e.g., more impulsive emotional responses, a lack of objectivity in
reacting to situations, difficulties in understanding others’ perspectives due
to immediate emotional reactions, and challenges in calming strong emotional
responses.

###  2.2. ADHD in the Workplace

Several studies exist that focus on the performance of employees with ADHD in
the workplace. A recent study by Das et al. (Das et al., 2021) discusses
challenges of neurodivergent professionals when working from home during the
pandemic. While focusing on neurodiversity, 23 of their 36 interviewees
reported having ADHD. Furthermore, the majority of the interviewees works in
software-related roles. The study finds that common challenges are
creating/maintaining an accessible workplace, negotiating accessible
communication practices, and balancing productivity and well-being.

A questionnaire-based study by Fuermaier et al. (Fuermaier et al., 2021) finds
that people with ADHD often have difficulties meeting their own perceived
potential at work, performing efficiently, or taking on new tasks. Similarly,
they find that inattention is correlated and might predict with work-related
problems.

There is also criticism in the rising trend of self-diagnosed Adult ADHD,
influenced by popular media (Conrad and Potter, 2000). Many adults, after
encountering ADHD descriptions, identify with the symptoms and actively seek a
professional diagnosis, leading to potential over-diagnosis. Skeptics raise
concerns about the validity and authenticity of these diagnoses, noting that
adult ADHD has become a convenient medical explanation for personal failures,
such as job loss or divorce.

Finally, a recent survey by McDowall et al. (McDowall et al., 2023) among 1117
people, 127 employers and 990 neurodivergent employees, discusses challenges,
strengths, and strategies in the workplace. 611 of the participants report
that they have ADHD. Among other findings, the survey finds that over 45% of
the participants with ADHD find it likely that they will leave their current
job.

###  2.3. Impact on Software Engineering Activities

Literature about software engineers with ADHD is very limited. In the first
study about challenges of neurodiverse software engineers (Morris et al.,
2015), among the 10 interviewees, only one subject had ADHD while the rest was
on the autism spectrum. This person sought professional help after a negative
performance review. He struggled with time management, task prioritisation,
and multitasking, especially during verbal conversations. As strategies to
better cope with his condition, he requested permission to audio record
meetings for better task recall, written instructions for clarity, private
weekly check-ins with his manager to align on tasks, and more detailed
communication to avoid ambiguities. Gama and Lacerda (Gama and Lacerda, 2023)
report a pilot study on supporting neurodivergent individuals. They report
results from interviews with four people with ASD and ADHD. The study reports
challenges such as remembering discussions from meetings, coping with sudden
change, or dealing with impulsivity.

##  3\. Method

We study the experiences of people with ADHD in SE, which inherently depend on
the specific real-life context in which these people work. Therefore, we used
case study as a method. We follow the guidelines by Runeson et al. (Runeson et
al., 2012), as well as the ACM Empirical
Standards333https://github.com/acmsigsoft/EmpiricalStandards/blob/master/docs/CaseStudy.md.
In the following, we discuss the method in detail.

###  3.1. Study Design

The study design we use is an exploratory, single-case design with one unit of
analysis. The case we studied is software engineers with ADHD. We consider the
term software engineer broadly, also including people in managerial roles that
have a technical software engineering background. The unit of analysis
comprises all work-related activities, including interactions with other
people at work.

The study was conducted by three researchers. The first and third author are
SE researchers experienced in qualitative methods and human factors. The
second author is a student who familiarised himself with qualitative methods
during the study.

We follow a constructivist world view in which different actors construct
their own truth through their perceptions of the world. To better understand
these individual perceptions, we chose to use interviews as a primary means of
data collection. Given that we used an exploratory, constructivist research
approach, we started the study with no pre-defined theoretical base.

###  3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

We recruited study participants through advertisements on Twitter/X and
LinkedIn, using hash tags related to ADHD and neurodiversity. Furthermore, we
encouraged participants to advertise the study through their networks. To take
part in the study, participants had to fill in an informed consent
form444Included in the published dataset. that was provided as an electronic
form. In the form, participants could give or deny consent to participating at
all, to record the interview, and to having their anonymised transcript
published after study completion. They were granted the right to withdraw
their consent at any time. For publishing the transcripts, we obtained their
consent a second time after we sent them the transcripts and the preliminary
results. All participants consented to participation and recording, and six
people consented to publication of their transcript. The study was conducted
at universities in northern Europe and South America, where no ethics
approvals were required under the local regulations. The interviewees with
their role or area of work are listed in Table 1. In terms of gender, 13
identified as men, 2 as women, 1 as a trans-woman, and 3 did not disclose
their gender. Six interviewees work in South America, five in Europe, four in
North America, and two in Asia. Two interviewees did not disclose their
location. Interviews took between 20 and 60 minutes.

Table 1. Interviewees with experience and role. ID | Role or Area of Work | Experience
---|---|---
I1 | Information Security | 29 years
I2 | QA Engineer | ¡1 year
I3 | Security Analyst | 20 years
I4 | Software Development | 2 years
I5 | Founder | 16 years
I6 | Engineering Manager | 13 years
I7 | Senior Software Engineer | 7 years
I8 | QA Engineer | 5 years
I9 | Mobile Development | 15 years
I10 | Mobile Development | 10 years
I11 | Director of Engineering | ¿20 years
I12 | Senior Engineering Manager | 20 years
I13 | Software Development | 1 year
I14 | Software Development | 5 years
I15 | Senior Data Engineer | 7 years
I16 | Software Development | 2 years
I17 | Software Development | 3 years
I18 | Software Development | 1 year
I19 | Senior Software Engineer | 6 years

We collected and analysed data in an iterative fashion. Specifically, we used
in vivo coding throughout the analysis, i.e., using the interviewees’ own
words as codes (Saldaña, 2021). In vivo coding helps to avoid
misinterpretation of the interviewees’ spoken words.

Coded statements were then gathered in the electronic whiteboard software
Miro555https://miro.com and iteratively grouped into related categories. We
jointly discussed the categories after 3 interviews, after 10 interviews, and
then at least weekly until we reached 19 interviews. After the first two
discussions, we also adapted the interview instrument666All interview
instruments are included in the published dataset.. After 17 interviews, we
summarised the results graphically and in writing and sent them out to the
interviewees for member checking. Furthermore, to account for a limited
background in Psychology among the researchers, we discussed these results
with a researcher in Psychology at one of our universities.

Finally, we performed four semi-structured interviews with experienced
managers (14, 16, 23, and 20 years of experience in SE; one woman and three
men) recruited through personal contacts, discussing the implications of our
findings for the SE industry. These interviews took approximately 30 minutes
each, starting with a presentation of our findings. Informed consent was
obtained orally, and we took notes only. The managers’ views (M1-M4) are
reported in Section 5 with a joint discussion on industrial implications.

###  3.3. Validity Threats

We present threats to validity in terms of transferability, credibility and
confirmability (Petersen and Gencel, 2013), as we follow a constructivist
world view.

####  3.3.1. Transferability

Transferability describes to what extent study results apply to similar cases
(Petersen and Gencel, 2013).

We only report categories supported by at least three different interviewees,
to ensure sufficient triangulation. Similarly, we include interviewees with
different roles, experience, and geographic distribution. Therefore, we
believe that the results are transferable to other people with ADHD working in
the software industry. Nevertheless, the broad spectrum of ADHD-related
symptoms and specific work context can vary substantially. To mitigate this
threat to some extent, we discuss our findings, which are based on inductive
research, in relation to existing theory from ADHD research.

While most categories remained stable after analysing 10 interviews, we did
not reach saturation. We decided to stop data collection after 19 interviews,
since the only newly-added categories related to symptoms more commonly
associated with ASD and Dyslexia, which have a high co-morbidity with ADHD
(Hours et al., 2022; McGrath and Stoodley, 2019). Additionally, we created
hypothetical associations between different categories. Validating these
remains future work.

####  3.3.2. Credibility

Credibility describes whether findings are reported truthfully, or have been
distorted by the researchers (Petersen and Gencel, 2013).

We used recordings and verbatim transcripts in our analyses to avoid
distortion. During the analysis, we maintained a chain of evidence using in
vivo codes, memoing, and frequent discussions among the three authors.
Similarly, we use extensive quotes when reporting our results. Finally, to
increase credibility, we publish all versions of our interview instruments,
and six anonymised transcripts in our dataset.

####  3.3.3. Confirmability

Confirmability describes the extent to which researchers’ conclusions follow
from the observed data (Petersen and Gencel, 2013).

Our main means to ensure confirmability is the use of in vivo codes that are
quoted in the results, combined with member checking among all interviewees.
The preliminary results section, together with a mapping of interviewees to
categories was sent to the interviewees with a one-week period to give
feedback. Several interviewees replied with comments, but without any
corrections to the reported categories.

##  4\. Results

In the following sub-sections, we report our findings according to challenges,
strengths, and strategies reported by our interviewees.

###  4.1. Challenges

According to our results, people with ADHD deal with various different
challenges (see Figure 1). Below, we report these according to the four main
categories.

Figure 1. Challenge Categories. Arrows between categories depict hypothetical
associations.

15 Challenge categories grouped into 4 higher-level categories. Arrows between
categories depict hypothetical associations.

####  4.1.1. Tasks, Deadlines & Estimation

Three challenges relate to organisation of various tasks and activities,
related deadlines, and estimation of necessary time.

##### Over-Promise

Three interviewees report the tendency to over-promise on their deliveries.
For instance, two interviewees state that they would commit to too many
projects: “I take on too many projects.” (I8) “I will say yes to everything.”
(I6) This over-commitment then leads to overtime. “[I would] work 16 hours a
day, and also working weekends” (I6)

##### Organization & Planning

Eleven interviewees state difficulties with organisation and planning. The
statements range from general lack of organisation skills to more specific
issues. For instance, two interviewees raise that they have difficulties
estimating time. “I have no sense of time.” (I6) “I just don’t really have a
good sense of, like, how long something will take.” (I12)

In others, the tendency is rather to either start things without planning
sufficiently, or, vice versa, over-planning activities. “I usually am the
person that just like dives right in and starts everything off before actually
like taking the time to plan anything very thoroughly.” (I8) “I tend to
sometimes over-plan stuff.” (I9)

##### Dealing with Deadlines

Deadlines are challenging for several of our interviewees. In some cases, this
relates to difficulties with estimating time, as mentioned above. However, in
many cases the difficulties rather relate to actively working towards
deadlines instead of prioritising other tasks. “Had a task for this for like 3
months in my to do list [..] 72 days overdue, and I wouldn’t do anything about
it” (I5) Similarly, several interviewees state that they would have issues
remembering deadlines. “[..] If I can’t see it, I’m not going to remember it.”
(I3) Finally, the fact that deadlines exist cause stress and anxiety in some
interviewees. “[I am] quite stressed by deadlines.” (I9)

##### Unclarity and Missing Rationales

Six interviewees state that they find a lack of clarity challenging. This
relates both to the way of working at the company, and to goals of development
tasks. “The biggest issue for me was not having a clearer ’why’.” (I12) “I
struggle with this navigating structures and finding who to talk about.” (I9)

####  4.1.2. Attention to Work

Seven challenges emerged in relation to paying attention and maintaining focus
to various work tasks.

##### Doing Boring Tasks

As a result of preferring instant gratification, performing tasks that are
perceived as mundane or not interesting is difficult for 14 interviewees.
“It’s not necessarily a specific area. It’s more about what feels fun now
versus what isn’t.” (I5) “I just want to get to the interesting part” (I12)

A few interviewees describe more specific areas that tend to be tedious. Two
people mention writing repetitive code or boilerplate code. “Repetitive tasks
[..] something which [..] requires a lot of coding to set up, that is the most
challenging part.” (I4)

Three interviewees state that non-technical parts like planning projects or
management tasks are hard to complete: “Where it’s less technical, it’s more
business and this kind of stuff, I struggle [..].” (I9) “the non-software part
of engineering [is boring].” (I10)

Finally, four interviewees state that they have difficulties performing tasks
that do not provide instant reward, which is related to delay aversion. “[I
struggle with] tasks where I’m not getting dopamine hits.” (I1) If this is not
the case, focusing on the task is difficult “[..] keeping, like, the final
thing, the final reason that I’m doing a thing, the final goal, on top.” (I12)

##### Memory

Three interviewees state that they have difficulties remembering things,
especially short-term memory. “My memory is sort of contained in the short
term” (I13) “I’ve noticed that my ability to remember things has got really
bad, especially like within, like a 5-minute period” (I7)

##### Starting and Finishing

Starting and finishing tasks is considered difficult by eleven interviewees.
For some, this challenge relates to a lack of motivation. “[..] lack of
motivation and it just being able to really focus and dive into things, it’s
just not there.” (I3) “When I feel I’m near to that goal, or I actually reach
that goal, I wouldn’t go any further than that.” (I13) However, others
mentioned that they instead perceive this challenge like a block. “the first 5
percent are impossible. And then last 15 percent is like torture.” (I12) “the
idea of like time paralysis, when, like you have a meeting in an hour so like
you won’t start anything, because, you know, you won’t be able to get into
the… that mindset.” (I10)

##### Consistent Performance

Various challenges with organisation, planning, as well as with keeping focus
over a longer period of time lead to issues maintaining consistent performance
at work, as stated by four interviewees. “[I have a] fairly narrow window [..]
where I am able to execute at a consistent level” (I1) Specifically, one
interviewee described their productivty as ’spiky’. “Over like a long enough
time period [..] output is the same, or higher or whatever [..] but mine is
very spiky.” (I10)

##### Context Switching

Linked with focus troubles, interviewees shared difficulties switching
context. “Switching to [a] state, that takes me quite a bit of time.” (I9)
While context switching is difficult for most people, individuals with ADHD
might have an even harder time. For instance, one interviewee shared: “It can
take me almost an hour to get the entire structure and everything like loaded
into my mind, and then somebody will come by me like, ’Hey, did you see the
football game?’.” (I1)

##### Maintaining Focus

Dealing with distractions and maintaining focus on a task is mentioned by
eleven interviewees. In general, this relates to easily getting distracted by
things that capture the interest of the interviewees more than the tasks at
hand. “Shiny objects, and I’ll go in 10 different directions.” (I3) “People
with ADHD, concentrating for 1.5 hours, is really the first battle to fight.”
(I4) However, the work environment in particular provides a common source of
distraction. “For someone with ADHD, [..open office] is just a recipe for
disaster ” (I1) “I couldn’t listen to music, and I couldn’t concentrate on
anything because it was so noisy.” (I14)

##### Participating in Meetings

Nine interviewees state that it is hard for them to participate in meetings.
Specifically, they mention that they get very easily distracted so that they
cannot follow the meeting. “I wind up like doodling. I’ll say things like,
’Oh. [..] Sorry the zoom glitched out.’.” (I1) “Someone would get on a very
boring tangent and I would just, like, start scrolling on my phone.” (I10)

Additionally, several of the interviewees express that they feel meetings are
frequently a waste of time. “Meetings are a waste of time. If nobody’s
prepared, that means we gonna have a meeting that will result in another
meeting” (I5)

####  4.1.3. Relation to Others

As software is primarily engineered in teams, the relation to other engineers
is important. However, several challenges arise in this context.

##### Alignment with Neurotypicals

Ten subjects describe challenges aligning with neurotypical colleagues. They
describe that others sometimes struggle to follow their line of thought.
“Sometimes I couldn’t get them to see [..] That’s where I usually left.” (I1)
“I will spend like a few hours just to explain to people.” (I6)

Similarly, several interviewees have the feeling that they are not in the
right place, and should behave differently. “[I’m] not playing the role that
I’m supposed to be.” (I6) “[..] I put a lot of pressure on myself to be normal
as much as I can.” (I2) This aspect also relates to the fear of
stigmatisation. “The main challenge is the stigma.” (I4) “Job applications.
They ask you if you suffer from any of these things [..] and I don’t even like
answering those. You know there is that stigma around it.” (I3)

##### Communicating

As a third category, we find that seven interviewees struggle with
communication style. In some of these cases, the communication style differs,
and is considered rude or confusing by others. “I was so wired and agitated
that the guys from another team were saying I was being rude.” (I14) “some
things I just say unfiltered.” (I5)

In other cases, interviewees state that they have a hard time directing
others, e.g., to work overtime. “I am absolutely terrible at [pushing others
to put in extra work, overtime].” (I16)

Interestingly, one person states it is easier to express thoughts in code.
“Somehow, in code it’s easier, but in words, it’s harder.” (I11)

####  4.1.4. Health

Several health-related challenges were raised by our interviewees.

On a general level, the accumulated experiences of people lead to difficulties
in maintaining a good physical and mental health. The interviewees raise
issues ranging from depression and trouble sleeping up to substance abuse.
“Depression, anxiety, substance abuse.” (I6) “Anxiety and depression could be
because [of] undiagnosed ADHD.” (I8)

“I remember having those days that you know, just could not get anything done.
And I would come home just frustrated because I knew I wasted a day[..]” (I3)

##### Fear of Negative Emotions

Four interviewees a fear of negative emotions. For two, this relates to fear
of rejection. “[I have] rejection sensitivity dysphoria, [..] fear of
rejection. [..] I cannot handle people saying no.” (I6)

As several of our interviewees work in managing positions, this is also an
issue that arises when the performance of team members is not satisfactory.
“It’s the absolute worst part of my job. I wish every single person could just
do great.” (I11)

##### Anxiety due to Self-Expectations

Most interviewees have experienced difficulties at work that can be attributed
to ADHD, e.g., due to issues with meeting deadlines. This results in anxiety,
as stated by six interviewees. “when I face box or issues that I can’t resolve
immediately I tend to get very anxious.” (I13) In some cases, this relates to
their own set expectations: “I am always my own hardest critique.” (I8) “I had
a lot of impostor syndrome, so like learning new systems I thought was
difficult.” (I12)

###  4.2. Strengths

While challenges are common, the interviewees also raise numerous perceived
strengths (see Figure 2). We discuss them below.

Figure 2. Strengths reported by the interviewees. Arrows between categories
depict hypothetical associations.

Eight Strengths reported by the interviewees. Arrows between categories depict
hypothetical associations.

####  4.2.1. Creativity & Divergent Thinking

Twelve interviewees state that they have the ability to be creative,
essentially being good ’out-of-the-box’ thinkers. [..] “[I’m] always coming up
with creative ideas.” (I4) “I’m definitely better at like that kind of yeah,
creative, generative conversations.” (I12)

However, some specify that creativity is primarily linked to the various
interests they have. “Integrating a lot of those things that you dipped your
toes into. [..] I think that’s what helps with this divergent thinking,
right?” (I5)

Finally, two interviewees also describe that they do not consider what they
produce creative, even if it is novel: “I’m creative but I don’t feel like
it’s… when most people say creative it’s what they think of.” (I11) “I’ve just
like glued a few things together and built this thing that does a lot of stuff
that no one else has done.” (I7)

####  4.2.2. Rewards

Three strengths relate to tasks that provide the feeling of having a reward.

##### Solving Puzzles

Seven interviewees state that they are good at solving puzzles. They state
that they are good at thinking through multiple different steps. “Some
background process in my brain is putting all these puzzle pieces together and
figuring that out.” (I11) “I’m better at making connections between things.”
(I12)

This strength specifically relates to software engineering activities like
investigating incidents or fixing bugs. “Really good at investigating security
incidents (big puzzles).[..] It branches out into 10 different directions, and
you never know which thread to pull on.” (I3) “I’m pretty good at seeing like
’Aha! Like this system that we’re using. It is broken because of this.’” (I11)

##### Exploring Novel Things

Connecting different pieces of information was mentioned by interviewees
related to solving puzzles (see above). However, it also leads to the strength
to explore novel things, as reported by seven interviewees. “I like the
novelty [..] always exploring.” (I1) “I guess I’m good at picking up new tech
things.” (I11) In turn, this strength may encourage them to share novelty at
work. “I’ve been taking the initiative at work, like bringing in new
technology to my team.” (I2)

##### Feedback and Improvement Tasks

Seven interviewees state that they are good at tasks that provide immediate
feedback, or tasks that consist of iteratively improving something. “it
doesn’t even have to be a reward, it just has to be feedback” (I1) This is why
they enjoy doing debugging and also the product side of a project. “I love
refactoring and debugging.” (I11)

####  4.2.3. Perspective

Two strengths relate to a broad perspective on software systems and their
evolution.

##### Broad Interests/System Thinking

Twelve interviewees state that their interests are very broad. They consider
this a strength, as it enables them to think broadly and consider various
aspects of a system and its environment. “I’ve got such a broad interest in
various aspects.” (I1) “I’ve always just been very… in everything, doing
everything.” (I8) Furthermore, it allows them to make connections that other
people are less likely to see. “[I’m] good at synthesizing all these different
requirements.” (I6) “your interest switches. So you kind of have this bigger
picture view.” (I5)

##### Thinking Ahead

Six interviewees state that they see a strength in the ability to think ahead.
“I just told the tech lead [..] they’re doing this like this. [..] they’re
already thinking about this.” (I2) “I go a little deeper than what a lot of
people do.” (I10) Due to this ability, they have an improved ability to see
how systems or projects will evolve in the future. “How the system will evolve
in terms of where we are now. [..] like a product road map type of thing.”
(I5)

####  4.2.4. Increased Focus

Seven interviewees state that they can sometimes be extremely focused and
productive on parts of a project. “Work-related [increased focus] [..] can be
incredibly helpful” (I1) “it’s interesting to me. So I get a kind of a hyper
focus on it.” (I10) However, the interviewees also state that this increased
focus can be both very draining and rare to achieve. “If it really clicks you
just you go on loop. [..it] is draining. But in this makes you way more, let’s
say, forward looking.” (I5)

####  4.2.5. Mentoring/Training Others

As a final strength, mentoring colleagues is a strength six interviewees
stated as well. “I enjoy like training other people like the lower level
analysts that I work with.” (I3) “I love… you know, employee development and
employee growth.” (I11)

###  4.3. Strategies

As a final part of our results, we elicited twelve strategies (see Figure 3)
the interviewees use to overcome challenges, or to better use their strengths.
Below, we report these strategies.

Figure 3. Reported Strategies.

Twelve reported strategies.

##### Medication

Medication plays an important role for almost all of our interviewees, and
helps them significantly. “Medication helps a lot.” (I3) “it is helping me a
lot compared to [..] before.” (I6) However, a few interviewees also state that
the side effects can be difficult, which is why they try to avoid medication.
“Partly because of side effects. But I also want to try not to rely on
medication that much.” (I13) “I felt I just could not feel happy at all while
I was on that.” (I8)

##### (Self-)Awareness

Eight interviewees state that being aware that they have ADHD helps them a lot
to understand and to adapt better. “I could have been way more effective if I
knew what was going on.” (I5) “I understand that I’m going through this and
I’ll feel this way so I can respond in a more appropriate way.” (I13)

Daily reflection and being patient are two ways raised by the interviewees to
further improve their self-awareness. “Being a little bit patient, and open to
like understanding that.” (I10) “It helps a lot, which is daily reflection.”
(I13)

##### Externalising

Externalising things in different ways is a strategy mentioned by eleven
interviewees. The most popular means, todo lists, help with keeping track of
tasks and activities, remembering deadlines, and staying productive. “Now it’s
on my to do list. I’m gonna execute on it.” (I5) “My lists are so all over the
place, and I’m actually getting a shit more done.” (I12) Some interviewees
intentionally mix the kind of items on their lists, e.g., including both work-
related and personal items. “Listing of projects, all short term projects and
goals [..] not all work related.” (I3)

As support tools, several interviewees use calendar apps. However, physical
lists and sticky notes are mentioned as well. “I used to try to use like todo
list or you know, these like very structured to do list apps.” (I12) “Even now
I’ve got a a small sheet of paper behind me, or in front of me. ” (I3)

In addition of keeping track of todos, several interviewees take notes of all
information they consider useful in order to remember details in the future.
“I have a document per report where I’ll just keep information about them [..]
I also put dates on for things because I made mistake like ’Oh, how was your
vacation?’, they’re like ’that was 6 months ago.’” (I11) “The blog posts that
I do is definitely a thing of it, it is a way for me to remember things.” (I7)

Since our interviewees typically have a programming background, four
interviewees stated that they build their own support systems that help them
to deal with various challenges. “Systems that I built to like, how I manage
the team, how I communicate with them were because I have ADHD” (I5) “I have
to automate tests in everything, linters, have some minimum automation in the
IDE to try to catch possible typos.” (I15)

##### Help from Others

Ten interviewees ask for help from colleagues or other people around them.
Four interviewees mention therapy specifically. “[..] And so therapies could
help.” (I4) “Therapy [Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT)] was kind of
liberating for helping me find my functional self beyond the medication.”
(I16)

Another method that was frequently mentioned is ’body doubling’, where you
work with someone else in the same room, even if they are not talking or
working on the same thing. “I do like soft Co-studying with my friends as
well.” (I13) “Also body doubling is so huge for me.” (I12) One of the
interviewees mentioned specifically pair programming in this context: “But I
think it [Pair Programming] can help someone with ADHD because if they get
distracted, there’s someone there to pull them back in” (I19)

Coaching is mentioned by two people, and having an accountability buddy by
one. “The leader made himself available, he saw that I was technically
limited.” (I14) “It’s ’cause when I make plans with someone, I’m committing to
them.” (I17)

##### Clear Communication

Seven interviewees report that they use clear communication to make others
understand how they are thinking and which challenges they might experience.
“Having this negotiation of how you communicate, I find, this very helpful.”
(I11) “’Tell me exactly how you want us to interact’. And like, ’Oh, my God,
it’s so great’. Just..it’s clarity.” (I11)

Finally, one interviewee stated that several colleagues got diagnosed due to
them talking about their symptoms. “When I got my diagnosis and I was very
vocal with my team about it, that then also led to a few of my colleagues
getting diagnosed.” (I7)

##### Work Modes

Ten interviewees suggest modifying different work modes.

Six interviewees state that it is helpful to work from home. “[..] Working
from home’s been really helpful, too.” (I3)

One of the reasons why this strategy helps, is due to the control over the
environment. “Having a lot of control over my environment helps.” (I12) “[I]
don’t have people looking over my shoulder every minute of the day.” (I3)

Similarly, having flexible work hours is reported as helpful by seven
interviewees. “I’m fairly nocturnal person. So for me, working like from 9 to
5 is not always the most conductive to be like a good employee.” (I10)

Finally, one person suggests that smaller sub-groups within a company helps
them. “More autonomous kind of… subgroups.” (I9)

##### Adapting Meeting Formats

Since meetings can be challenging for many interviewees, they work on adapting
meeting formats to make them easier to follow, or reduce the meeting time.
“[..] we definitely need these meetings, but they could be shorter.” (I2)
“Either be like a working meeting or a quick, like a standing meeting.” (I1)

One frequently-mentioned aspect is that agendas help preparing for and
following a meeting. “Meetings need agendas.” (I11)

Finally, two interviewees shared ways of better keeping attention during
remote meetings. “For a couple of meetings like I will have like a fidget
cube.” (I10)

##### Rest / Switch Tasks

Another strategy developed by three interviewees is to accept when they are
stuck on one task, and take some time to rest and do something else. “Being
more kind with yourself [..] it’s fine to have a day off.” (I10) “I shouldn’t
go look at a Youtube video, but if I look at a pull request, it’s work. So
it’s like doing a distracting thing but that’s work, so that actually helps.”
(I11)

##### Managing Distractions

Since many of our interviewees are easily distracted, removing distractions in
their environment can help. “Not take my laptop to the meeting, because I
would otherwise… and like to leave my phone behind.” (I10)

Also, some people talk about having ’good’ distractions that help them focus.
“Music and sort of different kinds of like beats and rhythms [..are] really
helpful.” (I12) “I got the TV on with something playing in the background,
just to get some background noise.” (I3)

##### Company Policies and Processes

The way companies work play an essential role for our interviewees. They
mention various aspects that could help them perform better. First,
interviewees mention diversity policies and generally talking about
neurodiversity. “I had to find a place where people cared less about the norms
because I really didn’t fit in in a lot of places.” (I11) “Work environment
should just embrace how people are and try to work with it.” (I8) This is also
raised in relation to educating neurotypical people with respect to ADHD.
“Companies could do more in terms of educating line managers.” (I13)

A second aspect is to offer flexibility with respect to deadlines and to the
work environment, e.g., tooling. “View the idea of deadlines differently.”
(I6) “And not having that pressure to clock in, especially being on time all
the time.” (I16) “Some companies force everybody to use the same editor, and
I’m like, ’I need my Emacs’.” (I5)

Several interviewees further mention that an executive coach or an assistant
could help them. “They should offer them access to an executive assistant or a
ADHD coach.” (I12)

##### Outsourcing or Avoiding

Related to offering an assistant, as stated in the previous paragraph,
interviewees tend to outsource or avoid tasks that they find difficult. “[I
do] not do that part of the job [time estimation] by myself.” (I6)

Some highlighted how important it is to switch roles when it does not suit
you. “Find the job that suits you [..] not every role will be suitable.” (I5)
“Using your strengths where it’s needed instead of sticking you on a project
that you’re not functioning well on.” (I8)

##### Adapting over Time

Several of our interviewees were diagnosed with ADHD at adult age. Therefore,
they had to deal with their challenges over a longer period time without being
aware of ADHD. As a result, they adapted over time and practiced to deal with
their challenges. “I had to work around so many things already.” (I5)

Some of them practice real situations at home to be able to do those things at
work. “I practice on my cats. I do, I need to practice it because I get so
emotional, and it’s not the other person.” (I11)

##  5\. Discussion

In the following, we discuss our findings in relation to the clinical
perspective on ADHD. Furthermore, we discuss the implications of our findings
on SE industrial practice.

###  5.1. Clinical Perspective

##### Challenges

Most of the challenges we identified can be mapped to relevant evidence from
literature specialised on ADHD. In the category named Tasks, Deadlines &
Estimation, the challenge of over-promising is a consequence of impulsivity,
which causes a worker to over-commit or frequently switch tasks without
completing (Nadeau, 2005), thus also affecting Dealing with Deadlines.
Organization & Planning and Dealing with Deadlines are clearly related to
planning, which is one of the cognitive processes that comprise cool EFs
(Goldstein et al., 2014), which may lead to procrastination, inadequate
planning and missed deadlines in people with ADHD (Langberg et al., 2008). The
temporal aspect of adults having difficulties in time discrimination,
resulting from inhibitory control problems, can also be related to deadlines
(Valko et al., 2010). Unclarity and Missing Rationales are related to the
difficulty of following through on instructions, especially when ambiguity may
lead to exacerbating time to understand and act (Barkley et al., 2010). There
are many distractions to both neurotypical and neurodivergent people, due to
excessive usage of smartphones, social networks and technology in general
(Ward et al., 2017). However, as emerged in Attention to Work, people with
ADHD typically struggle with that. Challenges such as Doing Boring Tasks or
Starting and Finishing are related do delayed aversion and the search for
quick rewards (Fleming and McMahon, 2012; Crone and van der Molen, 2004) but
also difficulties regulating response inhibition for stopping tasks (Nigg et
al., 2005). The rare SE literature (Gama and Lacerda, 2023) on neurodiversity
brings some evidence of ADHD developers tending to do over-engineering in
tasks they enjoy and have trouble stopping. Weaknesses on the working memory
EF are reflected on what emerged as Memory, but are also related to Context
Switching and remembering what was being done (Wu et al., 2006). Maintaining
Focus is an impairment directly linked to inhibitory control (Barkley, 2006;
Barkley et al., 2010). Overall, issues with regulating attention can range
from extreme hyperfocus to complete lack of concentration, and can lead to
other challenges like trouble switching between tasks (Hupfeld et al., 2019).

Concerning Communication, literature highlights communication impairments in
many people with ADHD who have different processing speed of social cues and
are frequently misunderstood (Nijmeijer et al., 2008). In many situations, due
to fear of stigma and social exclusion or rejection, neurodivergent
individuals try to mask their true selves in various social settings, and keep
trying to fit in (Beaton et al., 2020). The challenges related to Health are
mostly related to emotional dysregulation (Shaw et al., 2014). The term
rejection sensitivity dysphoria is starting to be used to describe the greater
sensitivity that people with ADHD have to rejection, causing them to set
higher standards for themselves, resulting in negative feelings such as
embarrassment or low self-esteem (Bedrossian, 2021). Also, issues related to
psychoactive substance abuse were linked to the impulsivity aspect of ADHD
(Wilens et al., 1998).

##### Strengths

Much of ADHD literature focuses on impairments and treatment, with limited
research on its positive sides. However, some reports and studies (White and
Shah, 2006; Sedgwick et al., 2019; McDowall et al., 2023) highlight attributes
like heightened creativity and divergent thinking, as well as curiosity. Many
interviewees said they were creative and good at coming up with new ideas,
matching with studies that state ADHD being more creative (White and Shah,
2006; Sedgwick et al., 2019). There are also studies (Hupfeld et al., 2019;
Mahdi et al., 2017; Nadeau, 2005) emphasising other positive aspects such as
resilience, energy, hyperfocus, and empathy. Many of our participants like
mentoring their colleagues. This can be linked to increased empathy. Some
interviewees said they do well when getting immediate feedback on their work.
This relates to studies that tell us people with ADHD look for quick rewards
(Fleming and McMahon, 2012; Crone and van der Molen, 2004).

Empirical studies (Kosaka et al., 2019; Keezer et al., 2021) report that many
people with ADHD have an above average IQ, despite their cognitive and
emotional impairments. Many of our interviewees are also good at solving
puzzles and seeing connections, which may suggest a potential relation to
higher IQ. Many participants reported liking to plan for the future and think
about the bigger picture. This goes against the usual idea that people with
ADHD only think about the “now” and cannot plan ahead. Although ADHD is linked
with attention issues, some of our interviewees said that they can have many
situations of increased focus when compared to neurotypical peers under
certain circumstances, which is confirmed in ADHD literature (Hupfeld et al.,
2019).

Some people with ADHD manifest twice-exceptionality, which consists of
“demonstrate[ing] the potential for high achievement or creative productivity
in one or more domains such as math, science, technology, social arts, visual,
spatial, or performing arts or other areas of human productivity AND
manifest[ing] one or more disabilities” (Reis et al., 2014). Such twice-
exceptionality can mask cognitive areas in which these individuals have
difficulties. Sometimes, this means that no diagnosis during childhood and
even during adulthood is sought (Atmaca and Baloğlu, 2022). This type of
detailed investigation is not mandatory for ADHD diagnosis and is financially
expensive (Nadeau, 2005). Participant I17 was the only one reporting that
condition: “In the neuropsychological test, I found out I have this thing I
didn’t even know about, called twice-exceptional. It’s when you have ADHD
combined with giftedness.” (I17) However, we cannot conclude that other
interviewees had that condition or that only twice-exceptional individuals
have good work performance among people with ADHD.

##### Strategies

Many of our interviewees have developed personal coping strategies over time.
This mirrors the literature’s overarching theme of targeting various ADHD
aspects, suggesting that adapting strategies over time is vital for managing
ADHD. Backed by empirical evidence from literature, Fleming and McMahon
(Fleming and McMahon, 2012) list methods and strategies to assist adults with
ADHD, addressing multiple facets of the condition. These include strategies
like improving executive control through mindfulness practice and
externalising higher-level executive processes. For those facing challenges
with motivation towards long-term rewards, the recommendation encompasses
breaking tasks into smaller chunks, using contingent self-reinforcement, and
practicing mindfulness. Emphasis is also placed on time management,
concentration, and test-taking strategies. The guide underscores the
importance of maintaining a balanced lifestyle, encompassing sleep, diet, and
exercise, while also offering guidance on medication adherence and managing
addictive behaviors. Finally, it touches upon the significance of emotional
regulation, nurturing social relationships, and harnessing external sources of
support. We found many occurrences of such strategies being used by our
interviewees. Medication was explicitly cited as being important according to
most of our interviewees. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) was cited under
Help from Others, and its effectiveness in reducing ADHD symptoms was
confirmed in a recent systematic literature review (Young et al., 2020).
Another important strategy that we labeled as self-awareness consists of
psychoeducation, which is learning about what causes the mental condition the
person. In the case of ADHD, a self-aware (i.e., psychoeducated) person should
see it as a brain difference that has both challenges and benefits.

Some of the strategies were more general, while other were adapted to the SE
context. For instance, many of our interviewees use to-do lists or take notes
to externalise information, helping them staying productive. This can be
linked what Fleming and McMahon referred to as externalising higher-level
executive processes to improve executive control. This strategy is typically
suggested in CBT and fits well as a practice for self-organisation in a
software project context. Help from Others can be simply doing a task in the
presence of another person (i.e., “body-doubling”) (McDowall et al., 2023)
which also appeared in the form of pair programming. Accountability partner,
who could be a leader or someone from the team who helps one to monitor goal
progress (Young and McCauley, 2019) was also mentioned. This aligns with what
Fleming and McMahon mapped as Establishing External Reinforcement
Contingencies, which involves a support person. Some of our interviewees
stressed the need to manage distractions, which aligns closely with reducing
distracting stimuli and amplifying relevant stimuli (Fleming and McMahon,
2012). When exploring different possibilities of work modes, the preference to
work from home and having control over one’s environment in our results can be
tied to what Fleming and McMahon reported as managing inattentive/disorganised
behavior and temporal processing deficits (e.g., adding time reminders), which
relates to what we called managing distractions. Meetings are a problem
mentioned in the two existing studies on neurodiversity in SE (Gama and
Lacerda, 2023; Morris et al., 2015). The adaptation of meeting formats brings
strategies to generate minutes or clearer agendas. The strategy of adaptations
on companies policies and processes, such as the mention to offering an ADHD
coach, have strong empirical evidence to be effective to enhance the quality
of life in people with ADHD (Fleming and McMahon, 2012).

###  5.2. Software Engineering Perspective

Our findings align well with general challenges reported in existing research
on ADHD in the workplace, e.g., in (McDowall et al., 2023). However, the
challenges and strengths we found also strongly relate to existing SE
practice. All four challenges categorised under Tasks, Deadlines and
Estimation are core issues in SE, especially in agile processes where regular
planning, estimation, and uncertainty are key elements of everyday work.
Similarly, due to the strong team focus, Relation to Others are central. The
quick development pace might further clash with several challenges in
Attention to Work, e.g., when struggling with Consistent Performance, Starting
and Finishing, or Managing Focus. Finally, Doing Boring Tasks and
Participating in Meetings are common requirements in SE.

Two of the interviewed managers (M1, M4) note that several challenges might
not be limited to people with ADHD, e.g., anxiety (M4). Indeed, our current
analysis does not allow the conclusion that the found challenges, strengths
and strategies are specific to people with ADHD. However, two managers (M3,
M4) remembered employees with ADHD who exhibited several of the reported
challenges, e.g., Consistent Performance, Communication, and Dealing with
Deadlines

Interestingly, two managers (M1, M2) thought that many of the reported
challenges could effectively be addressed through existing agile practices. In
mature agile teams, Organisation and Planning is done jointly, e.g., through
the sprint planning and planning poker practices. Issues in Consistent
Performance are addressed through mutual trust, as the team learns to deal
with productivity swings. Similarly, Relation to Others will over time be
addressed to some extent, as the team matures. Numerous practices such as
short sprints, burndown charts, or continuous integration and deployment
provide regular Reward and can help addressing Doing Boring Tasks or Managing
Focus.

However, M1, M2, and M3 all thought that the reality of software development
is often different from the idealised agile development picture, which aligns
with existing studies, e.g., (Gregory et al., 2015; Hoda et al., 2012).
Specifically, it is common that the cross-functional team practice is not used
(Diebold and Dahlem, 2014) or that a command-and-control leadership style is
used (Gregory et al., 2015). Similarly, challenging sprint deadlines are
common (Hoda et al., 2012). Another aspect, raised by M3, is that working in
service or contracting companies could be challenging for people with ADHD, as
those companies typically sell their work on an hourly basis. Therefore,
issues with Consistent Performance could be rather problematic. This
highlights that not all roles or companies might be suitable for software
engineers with ADHD, as many interviewees stated.

In non-agile environments, M2 considered some of the challenges to be rather
problematic. While the pace might be slower, and thus reduce issues with
Consistent Performance or Starting and Finishing, other challenges might
become more problematic, e.g., Overpromise and Dealing with Deadlines due to
the long planning horizon. Similarly, Doing Boring Tasks could cause increased
problems, due to a lack of direct reward or feedback.

All managers saw several of the reported strengths as highly relevant in SE.
For instance, Thinking Ahead is a skill important to design, architecture, and
quality assurance activities (M1), and in general corporate environments (M2).
Also, Solving Puzzles is valuable for areas such as security and quality
assurance (M1). Broad interests/Systems Thinking is another strength that the
managers considered useful, e.g., for backend development (M1) or in startup
environments (M2). In the same direction, M1 and M4 noted that strengths could
be especially fostered in people with ADHD, such as providing increasing
training on software architecture if they show Broad Interests/Systems
Thinking (M1), or supporting people with exceptional Creativity. Finally, M3
shared that some of their best workers had ADHD, and their profiles would
match with most of the reported strengths. Clearly, this could be correlation
rather than a causation.

In terms of company accommodations, two managers (M3, M4) specifically
mentioned that it is feasible. However, this requires awareness of the
different conditions. Many interviewees were not disclosing their condition
for various reasons, e.g., fear of stigma, negative disclosure experiences, or
because they viewed ADHD as a “personal struggle”. This highlights that
companies might have to take the first steps in creating an inclusive
environment in which people with ADHD feel safe to discuss their challenges.
In fact, two interviewees shared experiences in which disclosure of their
condition led to further employees disclosing or getting diagnosed with ADHD.

###  5.3. Recommendations

In summary, many of the challenges, strengths and strategies we find resonate
well with the clinical perspective on ADHD and research on ADHD in the
workplace. However, there are unique perspective introduced by the SE context.
Therefore, we make the following recommendations.

As a first step, companies need to invest in awareness regarding
neurodiversity and in creating a workplace at which people with ADHD feel safe
disclosing and discussing their condition. Having a company inclusion policy
supported by specialized mental health professionals can provide a robust
infrastructure to deal with that topic. Even though not specific to SE, we
believe this point is a prerequisite for all further inclusion initiatives.

Second, use agile practices that effectively address many of the challenges.
Specifically, we believe these include agile teams in which group members do
joint estimation and agree on definitions of done to avoid over-engineering
tasks, work on one project/product only in a sustainable pace, and use various
means of direct feedback, such as burndown charts and information radiators.
To initiate tasks and fight procrastination, pair programming can be a
valuable tool.

Third, organisations should consider alternative career and promotion paths.
Junior software development positions might be a bad fit for many individuals
with ADHD, due to strong deadline-orientation, fine-grained performance
evaluations, and repetitive work. Instead, roles that match and further
develop the strength profiles of these individuals have the potential to
benefit both the individuals and the organisation.

Finally, organisations should keep supporting flexibility in choosing tools,
environments, and work modes. Tools of varied purpose (linters, task
management) can provide support and help externalising activities. Flexibility
in, e.g., working from home, using specific software tools of their choice, or
work hours benefit most engineers, but seem to be necessary strategies for
many people with ADHD. Distractions can compromise focus and productivity. A
home office could be a more controlled environment regarding that aspect but
companies can also provide more quiet or isolated offices where interruptions
or distractions could be avoided.

##  6\. Conclusion

In this paper, we contribute to the very limited body of literature about
neurodiversity in software engineering by reporting a case study on the
experiences of software engineers with ADHD, who are among the possibly
largest population of neurodiverse developers. We interviewed 19 software
engineers with ADHD and discussed the results with 4 experienced managers in
SE.

We find challenges, strengths, and strategies that resonate well with existing
clinical research on ADHD and research on ADHD in the workplace. Furthermore,
the findings are highly relevant to the SE context. We propose an initial set
of recommendations that can improve the inclusion of ADHD developers in
software teams. While existing agile practices have the potential to address
many of the challenges, companies need to take action to better serve this
population. This can bring relevant social impact in the lives of neurodiverse
developers and can also result in benefits for organisations. By having highly
capable individuals being included and lowering their challenges, this leads
to higher productivity and better results.

In future work, we plan to study to what extent our findings are specific to
software engineers with ADHD as compared to neurotypical engineers or
engineers with other neurodivergent subtypes.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank our anonymous interviewees for being open towards
sharing their experiences with us.

## References

  * (1)
  * American Psychiatric Association (2013) American Psychiatric Association. 2013\.  _Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5_. Vol. 5.  American psychiatric association, Washington, DC.
  * Antshel et al. (2014) Kevin M. Antshel, Bridget O. Hier, and Russell A. Barkley. 2014.  _Executive Functioning Theory and ADHD_.  Springer New York, New York, NY, 107–120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_7
  * Atmaca and Baloğlu (2022) Furkan Atmaca and Mustafa Baloğlu. 2022.  The two sides of cognitive masking: A three-level Bayesian meta-analysis on twice-exceptionality.  _Gifted Child Quarterly_ 66, 4 (2022), 277–295.
  * Austin and Pisano (2017) Robert D Austin and Gary P Pisano. 2017.  Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage.  _Harvard Business Review_ 95, 3 (2017), 96–103.
  * Barkley (2006) Russell A Barkley (Ed.). 2006\.  _Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment_.  Guilford press, New York.
  * Barkley (2011) Russell A Barkley. 2011\.  The important role of executive functioning and self-regulation in ADHD.  _J Child Neuropsy_ 113, 21 (2011), 41–56.
  * Barkley et al. (2010) Russell A Barkley, Kevin R Murphy, and Mariellen Fischer. 2010\.  _ADHD in adults: What the science says_.  Guilford press, New York.
  * Beaton et al. (2020) Danielle M Beaton, Fuschia Sirois, and Elizabeth Milne. 2020\.  Self-compassion and perceived criticism in adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  _Mindfulness_ 11 (2020), 2506–2518.
  * Bedrossian (2021) Louise Bedrossian. 2021\.  Understand and address complexities of rejection sensitive dysphoria in students with ADHD.  _Disability Compliance for Higher Education_ 26, 10 (2021), 4–4.
  * Conrad and Potter (2000) Peter Conrad and Deborah Potter. 2000.  From hyperactive children to ADHD adults: Observations on the expansion of medical categories.  _Social problems_ 47, 4 (2000), 559–582.
  * Crone and van der Molen (2004) Eveline A Crone and Maurits W van der Molen. 2004.  Developmental changes in real life decision making: performance on a gambling task previously shown to depend on the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.  _Developmental neuropsychology_ 25, 3 (2004), 251–279.
  * Das et al. (2021) Maitraye Das, John Tang, Kathryn E. Ringland, and Anne Marie Piper. 2021.  Towards Accessible Remote Work: Understanding Work-from-Home Practices of Neurodivergent Professionals.  _Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact._ 5, CSCW1, Article 183 (apr 2021), 30 pages.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3449282
  * Diebold and Dahlem (2014) Philipp Diebold and Marc Dahlem. 2014.  Agile practices in practice: a mapping study. In _Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10.
  * Doyle (2020) Nancy Doyle. 2020\.  Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults.  _British Medical Bulletin_ 135, 1 (2020), 108\.
  * Equality and Participation Unit, UCU (2022) Equality and Participation Unit, UCU. 2022\.  _Neurodiversity in the workplace - Supporting neurodivergent members at work and campaigning for neurodiversity-friendly workplaces_.  Technical Report. University and College Union.  https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/12406/Neurodiversity-Guidance/pdf/Neurodiversity_A4_guide_January_22.pdf.
  * Fleming and McMahon (2012) Andrew P Fleming and Robert J McMahon. 2012.  Developmental context and treatment principles for ADHD among college students.  _Clinical child and family psychology review_ 15 (2012), 303–329.
  * Fuermaier et al. (2021) Anselm BM Fuermaier, Lara Tucha, Marah Butzbach, Matthias Weisbrod, Steffen Aschenbrenner, and Oliver Tucha. 2021.  ADHD at the workplace: ADHD symptoms, diagnostic status, and work-related functioning.  _Journal of Neural Transmission_ 128 (2021), 1021–1031.
  * Gama and Lacerda (2023) Kiev Gama and Aline Lacerda. 2023.  Understanding and Supporting Neurodiverse Software Developers in Agile Teams. In _SBES ’23: Proceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering_ (Campo Grande, Brazil) _(SBES ’23)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 497–502.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3613372.3613384
  * Goldstein et al. (2014) Sam Goldstein, Jack A. Naglieri, Dana Princiotta, and Tulio M. Otero. 2014.  _Introduction: A History of Executive Functioning as a Theoretical and Clinical Construct_.  Springer New York, New York, NY, 3–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_1
  * Gregory et al. (2015) Peggy Gregory, Leonor Barroca, Katie Taylor, Dina Salah, and Helen Sharp. 2015.  Agile challenges in practice: a thematic analysis. In _Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming: 16th International Conference, XP 2015, Helsinki, Finland, May 25-29, 2015, Proceedings 16_. International Publishing, Cham, 64–80.
  * Hoda et al. (2012) Rashina Hoda, James Noble, and Stuart Marshall. 2012\.  Developing a grounded theory to explain the practices of self-organizing Agile teams.  _Empirical Software Engineering_ 17 (2012), 609–639.
  * Hoogman et al. (2020) Martine Hoogman, Marije Stolte, Matthijs Baas, and Evelyn Kroesbergen. 2020.  Creativity and ADHD: A review of behavioral studies, the effect of psychostimulants and neural underpinnings.  _Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews_ 119 (2020), 66–85.
  * Hours et al. (2022) Camille Hours, Christophe Recasens, and Jean-Marc Baleyte. 2022\.  ASD and ADHD comorbidity: what are we talking about?  _Frontiers in Psychiatry_ 13 (2022), 154.
  * Hupfeld et al. (2019) Kathleen E Hupfeld, Tessa R Abagis, and Priti Shah. 2019\.  Living “in the zone”: hyperfocus in adult ADHD.  _ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders_ 11 (2019), 191–208.
  * Keezer et al. (2021) Richard D Keezer, Sophie I Leib, Lauren M Scimeca, Justin T Smith, Lindsey R Holbrook, Dillon W Sharp, Kyle J Jennette, Gabriel P Ovsiew, Zachary J Resch, and Jason R Soble. 2021\.  Masking effect of high IQ on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test in an adult sample with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  _Applied Neuropsychology: Adult_ 0, 0 (2021), 1–9.
  * Kosaka et al. (2019) Hirotaka Kosaka, Toru Fujioka, and Minyoung Jung. 2019\.  Symptoms in individuals with adult-onset ADHD are masked during childhood.  _European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience_ 269 (2019), 753–755.
  * Langberg et al. (2008) Joshua M Langberg, Jeffery N Epstein, and Amanda J Graham. 2008.  Organizational-skills interventions in the treatment of ADHD.  _Expert review of neurotherapeutics_ 8, 10 (2008), 1549–1561.
  * Mahdi et al. (2017) Soheil Mahdi, Marisa Viljoen, Rafael Massuti, Melissa Selb, Omar Almodayfer, Sunil Karande, Petrus J de Vries, Luis Rohde, and Sven Bölte. 2017.  An international qualitative study of ability and disability in ADHD using the WHO-ICF framework.  _European child & adolescent psychiatry_ 26 (2017), 1219–1231.
  * McDowall et al. (2023) Almuth McDowall, Nancy Doyle, and Meg Kiseleva. 2023\.  _Neurodiversity at work: demand, supply and a gap analysis._ Technical Report. Birkbeck, University of London.
  * McGrath and Stoodley (2019) Lauren M McGrath and Catherine J Stoodley. 2019.  Are there shared neural correlates between dyslexia and ADHD? A meta-analysis of voxel-based morphometry studies.  _Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders_ 11, 1 (2019), 1–20.
  * Morris et al. (2015) Meredith Ringel Morris, Andrew Begel, and Ben Wiedermann. 2015\.  Understanding the challenges faced by neurodiverse software engineering employees: Towards a more inclusive and productive technical workforce. In _Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on computers & accessibility_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 173–184.
  * Nadeau (2005) Kathleen G Nadeau. 2005\.  Career choices and workplace challenges for individuals with ADHD.  _Journal of Clinical Psychology_ 61, 5 (2005), 549–563.
  * Nigg et al. (2005) Joel T Nigg, Gillian Stavro, Mark Ettenhofer, David Z Hambrick, Torri Miller, and John M Henderson. 2005.  Executive functions and ADHD in adults: evidence for selective effects on ADHD symptom domains.  _Journal of abnormal psychology_ 114, 4 (2005), 706\.
  * Nijmeijer et al. (2008) Judith S Nijmeijer, Ruud B Minderaa, Jan K Buitelaar, Aisling Mulligan, Catharina A Hartman, and Pieter J Hoekstra. 2008.  Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and social dysfunctioning.  _Clinical psychology review_ 28, 4 (2008), 692–708.
  * Petersen and Gencel (2013) Kai Petersen and Cigdem Gencel. 2013.  Worldviews, research methods, and their relationship to validity in empirical software engineering research. In _2013 joint conference of the 23rd international workshop on software measurement and the 8th international conference on software process and product measurement_. IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 81–89.
  * Pickersgill (2014) Martyn D Pickersgill. 2014\.  Debating DSM-5: diagnosis and the sociology of critique.  _Journal of Medical Ethics_ 40, 8 (2014), 521–525.
  * Polanczyk et al. (2007) Guilherme Polanczyk, Maurício Silva De Lima, Bernardo Lessa Horta, Joseph Biederman, and Luis Augusto Rohde. 2007.  The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: a systematic review and metaregression analysis.  _American journal of psychiatry_ 164, 6 (2007), 942–948.
  * Reis et al. (2014) Sally M Reis, Susan M Baum, and Edith Burke. 2014.  An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications.  _Gifted Child Quarterly_ 58, 3 (2014), 217–230.
  * Runeson et al. (2012) Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Austen Rainer, and Björn Regnell. 2012.  _Case study research in software engineering: Guidelines and examples_.  John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
  * Saldaña (2021) Johnny Saldaña. 2021\.  _The coding manual for qualitative researchers_.  Sage, London, UK.
  * Sarkis (2014) Elias Sarkis. 2014\.  Addressing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the workplace.  _Postgraduate medicine_ 126, 5 (2014), 25–30.
  * Sedgwick et al. (2019) Jane Ann Sedgwick, Andrew Merwood, and Philip Asherson. 2019\.  The positive aspects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a qualitative investigation of successful adults with ADHD.  _ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders_ 11 (2019), 241–253.
  * Shaw et al. (2014) Philip Shaw, Argyris Stringaris, Joel Nigg, and Ellen Leibenluft. 2014.  Emotion dysregulation in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.  _American Journal of Psychiatry_ 171, 3 (2014), 276–293.
  * Sonuga-Barke et al. (1992) Edmund JS Sonuga-Barke, E Taylor, S Sembi, and J Smith. 1992\.  Hyperactivity and delay aversion—I. The effect of delay on choice.  _Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry_ 33, 2 (1992), 387–398.
  * StackOverflow (2022) StackOverflow. 2022\.  Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2022.
  * Valko et al. (2010) Lilian Valko, Gudrun Schneider, Mirko Doehnert, Ueli Müller, Daniel Brandeis, Hans-Christoph Steinhausen, and Renate Drechsler. 2010.  Time processing in children and adults with ADHD.  _Journal of neural transmission_ 117 (2010), 1213–1228.
  * Vohs and Baumeister (2004) Kathleen D Vohs and Roy F Baumeister. 2004.  _Understanding self-regulation_.  Guilford Press, New York, Chapter 1, 1–9.
  * Ward et al. (2017) Adrian F Ward, Kristen Duke, Ayelet Gneezy, and Maarten W Bos. 2017.  Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity.  _Journal of the Association for Consumer Research_ 2, 2 (2017), 140–154.
  * White and Shah (2006) Holly A White and Priti Shah. 2006.  Uninhibited imaginations: creativity in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  _Personality and individual differences_ 40, 6 (2006), 1121–1131.
  * Wilens et al. (1998) Timothy E Wilens, Joseph Biederman, and Eric Mick. 1998\.  Does ADHD affect the course of substance abuse? Findings from a sample of adults with and without ADHD.  _American Journal on Addictions_ 7, 2 (1998), 156–163.
  * Willcutt (2012) Erik G Willcutt. 2012\.  The prevalence of DSM-IV attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review.  _Neurotherapeutics_ 9, 3 (2012), 490–499.
  * Wu et al. (2006) KK Wu, V Anderson, and U Castiello. 2006.  Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and working memory: A task switching paradigm.  _Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology_ 28, 8 (2006), 1288–1306.
  * Young and McCauley (2019) Stephen F Young and Cynthia D McCauley. 2019.  _User-driven feedback tools for leader development_.  Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 265–285.
  * Young et al. (2020) Zoe Young, Nima Moghaddam, and Anna Tickle. 2020\.  The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for adults with ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.  _Journal of Attention Disorders_ 24, 6 (2020), 875–888.
  * Zelazo and Müller (2002) Philip David Zelazo and Ulrich Müller. 2002.  _Executive Function in Typical and Atypical Development_.  John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, Chapter 20, 445–469.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996652.ch20