Fantasy GM wrote: Their one criticism - strangely - was on my extremely strong work ethic. My main evaluator wrote that it's both a strength and a weakness. It's a strength because, with the talent I have shown, all of my work comes out A-quality at the end. The weakness part is that I can be "off-putting"; if someone is slacking, I have a habit of taking too much charge and taking control of the rest of the assignment (while I like to help them out, I can't when we are on a tight deadline). The group also mentioned how I communicate more than I should during projects; most people under-communicate, so I need to find a happy medium.
I actually think work ethic is a strength and weakness, as well. It's great to put all-out effort into everything, but it has to be exerted properly and it has to be devoted to the right things. Put it another way, working smart is better than working hard.
I get the impression you're just starting out and eager to show you're capable of computing potential into dividends immediately. Most folks at entry-level feel that way in that they always have to convey enthusiasm and energy in their work, which is admirable. As you gain experience, you begin to realize you shouldn't be working at sixth gear most times... Rather, you have to know when to shift gears or when to be proactive/reactive, when to do something or not to do it, know when to listen and know when to speak, and so on.
As far as picking up the slack goes, I would rather see an employee check in with his teammate(s), ask how far they've gone with whatever they're doing, and collaborate with them to get whatever needs to be done, done, without being too bossy or too Draconian. This to me, shows emotional intelligence, a willingness to mature, and a deeper, more enlightened sense of leadership. Not only do you make the team better, but it also accentuates individual qualities as well (strengths and weaknesses).
Fantasy GM wrote:The only concern I have: I look for tells to see where I fall in with upper management. They are pretty good at hiding these tells, so no one in my position knows where they stand (promoted or fired after the trial period) until the day of.
That's because when you've been playing "the game" (for lack of a better term) for some time, you don't give away your tells. To me, a great manager has to be one that's levelheaded at all times, one who wears the same face in good and bad times, let alone how they manage and treat their employees. Given that this is a trial, perhaps the managers want to take full stock of their employees by the end of the trial (therefore not committing to a direction on the surface). There might be a project or two that has yet to make or break them
Fantasy GM wrote:To compare this into fantasy baseball...he is Matt Cain (mostly consistently good with his work, super-low maintenance, but not really a star yet), I am Tim Lincecum (No big mistakes, but can be a little turbulent sometimes, though no one is questioning the talent).
Perhaps they see some untapped potential with "Matt Cain"? In my view, some employers are better at getting the highly talented, but seemingly more volatile employees to develop a more mature commitment. Conversely, other employers are better in getting less talented but hardworking individuals with a good head on their shoulders to develop that talent to another level. Maybe, your employer falls in the latter group.