One of the key takeaways from the paper for me is the relative ranking of those 54 attributes. If the employees ranked “long-term thinking” above “creates a safe haven”, I have possibly learned something. If engineers rank attributes differently than managers or if cashiers rank attributes differently than tech workers...
Side note: I also thought the negative phrasing methodology used was interesting. They asked “is it possible to be a great engineer without this quality?” which I think is most tuned towards qualifying and ranking attributes.
Will it tell you individually how to become a great engineer? No, there are hundreds of posts, many on medium.com for that. This paper may not be perfect, but I found a lot to consider inside and “beyond useless” is pretty far from my judgment.
Side note: I also thought the negative phrasing methodology used was interesting. They asked “is it possible to be a great engineer without this quality?” which I think is most tuned towards qualifying and ranking attributes.
Will it tell you individually how to become a great engineer? No, there are hundreds of posts, many on medium.com for that. This paper may not be perfect, but I found a lot to consider inside and “beyond useless” is pretty far from my judgment.