ADD is not a deficit. It is a different operating system.

ADD sometimes feels to me like an ocean full of bubbles.

Each bubble is a topic.

• A thought.
• A task.
• A risk.
• An idea.
• A “we should also clarify this.”
• A “wait, there is another dependency here.”
• A “if we do it this way, this exact problem may appear three steps later.”

Some bubbles are small. They simply float somewhere in the background.

Others become bigger.

When a topic becomes more urgent, that bubble rises. It becomes more visible. It takes up more space. At some point, it feels like it is about to burst. And then I reach for it.

The challenge is: other bubbles keep floating by.

New thoughts. New stimuli. New connections. New risks. New possibilities.

Sometimes they briefly block my view of the topic I was actually trying to focus on. Sometimes my focus shifts, even though I know exactly what I wanted to work on.

And yes: that can be exhausting.

But it is also one of the reasons why I often see connections that others do not see yet.

Why I think around corners.

Why I sometimes find solutions that were not on the obvious list.

Why, in complex situations, I sometimes do not become less clear — but more clear.

I am not a good project manager for routine

I say this very deliberately:

I am not a good project manager for routine.

I am a good project manager for complexity.

That does not mean that I reject structure. Quite the opposite. I need structure. I like working with clear goals, decision paths, responsibilities, priorities and outcomes.

But structure is not the same as rigid routine.

Endless meeting minutes, repetitive lists, administrative work without real value and open-plan offices with constant sensory overload are not environments where I perform at my best.

Sensory overload is real.

An open-plan office can mean conversations on the left, phone calls on the right, movement in the corner of my eye, spontaneous interruptions, changing sounds, open topics, new impulses — and somewhere in between I am supposed to write a complex concept or think through critical dependencies.

That does not work well for me in the long run.

Routine without purpose costs me more energy than it should. Not because I do not want to work. But because my brain works differently.

It looks for patterns. Connections. Risks. Shortcuts. Alternatives. Solutions.

It does not only ask: “What is the next task?”

It asks: “Why are we doing it this way? What depends on it? Who is affected? What happens if this assumption is wrong? And is there a better way?”

In some environments, that can be difficult.

In others, it becomes a real advantage.

When things become complex, I often become calmer

In complex SAP programs, there are moments when everything happens at the same time.

• The timeline becomes tight.
• Testing reveals risks.
• Data migration is not as stable as expected.
• Interfaces behave differently than planned.
• Business readiness is not really reliable.
• The technical view says “green”, but your instinct says: “Something is not right here.”
• And management does not need another problem description — it needs the next viable decision.

These are situations in which many people become nervous.

I often become calmer.

Not because I underestimate the risks. But because this kind of complexity is where my brain works well.

Then I sort.

Then I look for patterns.

Then I connect information that had previously been sitting next to each other without being connected.

Then I translate between technology, business and management.

Then I bring teams back to the same table that may have started talking about each other instead of with each other.

Especially in project and program leadership, that matters.

Complex programs rarely fail only because individual people are not working. Often, everyone is working a lot. Sometimes too much. But they are no longer working in the same direction.

• Technology optimizes technical solutions.
• The business struggles with operational reality.
• Management needs decision-making capability.
• Testing reveals symptoms.
• Cutover reveals dependencies.

And somewhere in the middle, someone needs to identify what is truly critical.

My strength is often exactly there: in connecting things.

• Between teams.
• Between perspectives.
• Between technical reality and business impact.
• Between risk and decision.

Freedom is not a luxury. Sometimes it is a productivity lever.

For this to work, however, the environment has to fit.

Not perfectly.

But well enough.

For me, that means I do not need maximum freedom every day. I also do not need a special world. But I do need an environment that values impact more than traditional signals of presence.

Sometimes that means I step outside for five minutes to collect my focus again.

From the outside, this may not always look like classic productivity.

From the inside, it is more like: “I am preventing my brain from splitting into ten directions at once.”

After that, I am often significantly more focused again.

Sometimes it also means that I prefer writing complex concepts in the evening. Not because I do not work during the day. But because my mind is often clearer in the evening. Fewer interruptions. Fewer stimuli. Fewer context switches.

Between 7 p.m. and 2 a.m., I sometimes write better concepts than between two meetings at 2:30 p.m.

That may sound unconventional. But in project work, the result matters.

It matters whether the concept is solid.

It matters whether it creates clarity.

It matters whether it enables decisions.

And that is exactly the point.

Hyperfocus: blessing, risk and responsibility

When I truly care about a topic — or when a deadline is dangerously close — I can dive very deep.

Then I block out almost everything else.

Then I can work on a concept, a structure, a problem or a solution for twelve hours and later realize that someone should probably have reminded me to eat and drink.

That is not romantic. And it is not always healthy if it is not managed consciously.

But it shows something important: my challenge is not a lack of willingness to perform.

My topic is steering.

Focus is not always automatically there. But when it is there, it can be very strong.

That is why self-awareness is so important.

Today, I understand better which environments help me and which ones slow me down. I know when I need focus time. I know when I need to think through a topic in quiet. I know when I need exchange. And I also know when I am at risk of going too deep into one topic.

For me, this is a key part of working professionally with ADD:

Not pretending that everything is always easy.

But understanding how my own operating system works.

And then taking responsibility for using it properly.

ADD in a project context: not better, not worse, different

I do not like presenting ADD or ADHD as a simple “superpower”.

That is too easy.

There are challenges. Clearly.

• Sensory overload.
• Distractibility.
• Difficulty with monotonous tasks.
• Mental restlessness.
• Sometimes too many ideas at once.
• Sometimes a focus that does not switch on exactly when the calendar would like it to.

All of that is real.

But the strengths are real as well.

• Quickly understanding connections.
• Creative solutions.
• High energy when a topic is relevant.
• Thinking in possibilities.
• Calmness in critical situations.
• Unusual perspectives.
• The ability to connect different teams, topics and risks.

Especially in complex SAP programs, this can be valuable.

Because there, it is not enough to simply execute a plan. Of course, planning is necessary. Of course, governance is necessary. Of course, documentation, testing, cutover structures, decision paths and proper risk management are necessary.

But complex programs also need people who recognize when the plan may formally exist, but does not really hold up in practice.

People who can say: “This looks green, but I do not think it is reliable.”

People who do not only ask: “Is the task done?” but: “Is the outcome actually usable?”

People who connect teams instead of only collecting status.

The right environment makes the difference

For ADD to become an advantage in complex projects, the right conditions matter.

For me, these are mainly:

Clear goals.

I need to understand what we are working toward. Not only formally, but really. What is the goal? What is the value? What is critical? What is optional?

Trust.

If every working style has to be justified, too much energy goes into explanation instead of impact. Trust does not mean randomness. Trust means measuring the outcome, not the illusion of constant busyness.

Flexibility.

Not every strong contribution is created in the same working rhythm. Sometimes I need quiet. Sometimes exchange. Sometimes distance. Sometimes depth.

Focus time.

Complex topics cannot always be solved between two calls. Good concepts, proper risk analysis and sustainable structures need uninterrupted thinking time.

Honest feedback.

I do not need softened communication. I can work well with clarity. What helps is direct feedback: What do you need? What is missing? What is too much? Where do we need to sharpen the approach?

When these factors are in place, a win-win-win situation emerges.

Win-win-win: customer, project and person

The customer wins because they get impact instead of presence theater.

Not “he looked busy all day”, but: there is clarity. There is structure. There are decisions. Risks become visible. Teams are connected. Complexity becomes manageable.

The project wins because critical moments become calmer.

Not the artificial calm of “it will be fine”. But the productive calm of: “Let us look at the situation honestly, sort it out and decide the next meaningful step.”

And I win because I can use my strengths where they actually create value.

Not in environments that slowly drain me. But in tasks where my different operating system helps: understanding complex situations, recognizing patterns, developing creative solutions, taking responsibility and bringing teams back into alignment.

That is the key point for me.

ADD is not simply a problem.

It is also not a magical superpower.

It is a different way of processing complexity.

Not better.

Not worse.

But sometimes highly effective.

Especially when the environment is right.

My conclusion

I will probably never be the project manager who finds his greatest strength in repetitive routine.

I am not the person who thrives in open-plan offices, endless minutes and rigid working patterns.

But I am someone who can become highly effective in complex, critical and unclear situations.

When others only see chaos, I sometimes see patterns.

When others only see risks, I also see possible paths.

When teams drift apart, I can often build bridges.

And when things are burning, I do not become louder.

I become clearer.

Maybe that is exactly the point:

ADD is not a deficit.

It is a different operating system.

And when you understand how this operating system works, it can create real value.