Performing Employee Archetypes

We have often discussed the cost of non-performing employees. This month we discuss the potential costs of performing employees. Even though an employee might be performing well, it is useful to understand his or her true motivation. Understanding that motivation will help you be mindful of the circumstances under which his or her performance might degrade, and be intentional about addressing those situations.

We offer four archetypes of performing employees: Farmer, Hunter, Soldier and Terrorist.

The Farmer gets up every morning before the break of dawn to milk the cows and feed the animals. He toils all day tending to his crop and his herd. Like clockwork, he comes in at noon for his big mid-day meal, only to return to bale hay all afternoon. At dusk he retires and is not much good for any more work. He does this day in and day out, with no breaks for weekends. He has little interest in anything but his farm – takes little note of the economy, politics and sports. He is focused on his work.

I am sure you know of employees of this archetype. They are steady, dependable and hardworking. But they are usually reluctant to take work home or work on the weekends unless absolutely necessary. They have minimal interests beyond their work, showing little curiosity about the performance of the company, changes in the industry or emerging tools and techniques. They are unlikely to embrace change, adopt the new or reinvent themselves. But, for now, they are good, performing employees.

The Hunter likes the thrill of the kill. He works hard, perseveres, shows patience when needed and aggression when appropriate. He is focused on the prize. The prize is what drives him. And, when he finally hunts down the animal, the beast is going to be on his back when he returns to camp. There will be no question as to who killed that beast.

Employees of this archetype are very focused on the goal. When they achieve that goal they expect to be rewarded – financially, emotionally and with status. They don’t like egalitarian distribution of rewards. They believe in the strong surviving and the weak starving. Organizational changes in compensation philosophies, assignment of duties, organizational structure, etc. are viewed by hunters through the lens of “what does that mean for me?” They usually have large egos that need to be periodically stroked. But, for now, they are performing employees who consistently deliver results.

The Soldier, like the hunter, works hard, perseveres and shows patience or aggression as needed. But unlike the hunter, the soldier works for a cause. The soldier is not looking for personal glory or wealth, but the fulfillment of the cause.

To understand employees of this archetype, you must understand their cause. In my technology background there were many situations where commitment to a particular technology was the cause. Non-profits are often studded with soldiers. But even in a for-profit corporation you will find soldiers with a market-focused cause or a product-focused cause. For the soldier, winning is not about making money. Winning is about proving his point. Serving the cause. When the corporation chooses to move the focus from the particular technology, product or market, the soldier fights the organization tooth and nail. But, for now, the soldier is a well-performing, committed employee.

The Terrorist is like a soldier, but his cause is to eradicate a particular injustice he sees in his world. He believes that this injustice is being perpetrated by the powers that be, and he views himself powerless to fight the establishment. He is so convinced of the injustice that he will abandon accepted norms of behavior to fight the establishment. The terrorist employee is usually someone with a unique skill set that you cannot do without. He knows his value to the organization and he discharges his duties diligently.

Examples of injustice that infuriate the terrorist employee include particular gripes with compensation, abhorrence of certain management practices and complaints of opportunities held from certain groups of employees. His unique expertise enables him to hold management hostage. But, for now, management tolerates his temper tantrums so that the unique tasks can get done.

In all four archetypes, the employees are competent, committed and are performing their duties well.

But their behavior, both current and future, can lead to difficult situations. Management needs to understand each archetype, their motivation and possible changes in the business that could upset their motivation.

Additionally, certain cultures will find it difficult to accept certain archetypes.

In our Intentional Corporate Culture program, we ask clients to intentionally choose from one of four types of people culture: loyalty-based, competition-based (sometimes called performance-based), opportunity-based and lifestyle-based. Hunters will find it difficult to operate in a loyalty-based culture, while Farmers will experience similar difficulties in a competition-based culture, and Terrorists will be unwelcome in an opportunity-based culture. Being intentional about the style of your people culture will enable you to be selective in hiring and deliberate in nurturing your employees.

We have offered four archetypes of performing employees. There might well be more.

Our experience has shown that, in most cases, you can map employees into one of these types. Our intent is not to suggest that one type is better than the other. Even the terrorist has a legitimate role to play – he just feels downtrodden. Understanding the archetype of each performing employee allows management to be intentional about how to deal with them, and to be mindful when changes to the business might pose difficulties. As always, we refrain from being prescriptive in any way other than asking you to be intentional about your leadership and corporate culture.

Food for Thought is our way of sharing interesting concepts on corporate leadership and management with others who might find it useful. The thoughts offered are intended to be controversial and thought-provoking. They are intended to help our readers intentionally realize their potential, what we call Potentionality.