systems built around the “average worker” often fail because people’s needs, values, and motivations are too different for a single mold to fit.
maybe I'm not a strive truly, maybe I just forced myself into that mould because that was the one more often than not, acknowledged or rewarded
notes:
- we all show up to work with wildly different drivers, yet most systems treat us as if we’re the same.
- the workplace was built around one kind of worker – someone who’s efficient, obedient, and focused on climbing the ladder. But today’s world is more complex, and what energizes one person might drain another. As gig work, flexible schedules, and automation reshape jobs, understanding what really motivates people has never been more urgent.
- 1961 - if you want a promotion, make your boss happy. It didn’t matter how skilled you were – what mattered was obedience. That message captured the logic of the time. Success meant staying in line, not standing out.
- scientific management, was built around breaking tasks into simple, repeatable steps and rewarding workers who followed them efficiently. Sloan expanded this to large-scale corporate management, adding layers of hierarchy, standardized performance tracking, and formalized procedures. Together, they helped create a workplace culture that prized predictability and control over creativity or judgment.
- Scientific management promised a win-win: workers earned more by hitting targets, and companies cut waste. But the tradeoff was rigidity. Employees were treated less as thinkers and more as tools for output. Critics pointed out that this removed the human element from work. Still, those same techniques – like detailed procedures, performance metrics, and tight oversight – became the default model in business, education, healthcare, and government alike. Even now, many software platforms and HR systems entrench similar logics: monitoring output, ranking performance, and quantifying behavior.
- That’s where Austrian American thinker Peter Drucker steps into the debate. He argued that jobs based on thinking, analysis, and problem-solving required a different kind of management. You can’t measure a good idea the way you measure the speed of a machine. So instead of demanding compliance, Drucker urged leaders to support autonomy, build on people’s strengths, and encourage continuous learning. This led to the rise of the knowledge worker.
- Now fast-forward to the COVID-19 pandemic. Suddenly, the old systems didn’t work. Teams had to improvise. Chains of command broke down, and direct communication replaced formal channels. What once seemed risky – as in speed, flexibility, and trust – became essential for survival. The cracks in the system were no longer theoretical. They were visible, urgent, and unavoidable.
- Some people are deeply defined by their careers, while others see work as just a way to pay the bills. Some are drawn to risk and uncertainty; others want predictability and structure. The remaining dimensions include autonomy, future orientation, need for status, and desire to contribute to something larger than yourself.
- Don’t think of these as fixed personality types but rather as fluid profiles that help explain how different people engage with work. Most people lean toward one main pattern but can show traits from others. These archetypes are flexible tools for self-awareness and better teamwork.
First up, Givers are fulfilled by making a difference. They’re emotionally invested, collaborative, and often driven by empathy and trust. They shine in service-oriented roles where they can help others thrive.
Operators, on the other hand, value consistency, clear expectations, and harmony on the team. They tend to separate work from personal identity and prefer stable routines over constant reinvention.
Then we have the Artisans who are all about quality and craft. They take deep pride in mastering their skills and often prefer to work independently. While they may not seek the spotlight, their focus and standards are high.
Explorers crave learning, change, and stimulation. They’re practical in building skills and often change roles or industries to keep growing. They thrive when given freedom and variety.
Next, meet the Strivers. These people are focused on achievement, upward mobility, and recognition. They work hard, set ambitious goals, and track success by comparing their progress to others.
Finally, we have the Pioneers who want to shape the future. They take bold risks, commit to long-term visions, and often blur the line between who they are and what they do.
- people often shift from one to another as their priorities change, like moving from Striver to Giver or Artisan later in their careers. Understanding these archetypes can help you design work that actually fits people, and not an imaginary average.
- stop managing your workers like they are all the same
- when people’s motivations aren’t fully understood, even well-meaning policies can backfire.
- Archetypes aren’t just personality types – they explain what energizes people at work. Instead of focusing on what someone does, they help you understand why they do it
- If your team’s motivation patterns don’t match the environment they’re working in, even high performers can check out. Many workplaces unknowingly build systems – such as hiring, evaluation, and promotion – around one dominant archetype, usually the Striver. That tilts the playing field.
- It’s not enough to match someone’s skills – you’ve got to match their motivation. One person might want recognition, another might care more about autonomy or creativity.
- If you’re a manager, knowing your team’s archetypes lets you adjust your approach. Strivers might want goals and feedback; Givers might do better in team-driven roles. Pioneers meanwhile want room to experiment. Archetype training gives leaders the tools to assign tasks more effectively, tailor recognition, and prevent unnecessary friction before it starts. Motivation diversity becomes something you can work with, not around.
- You may not think of leaders this way, but they’re workers too. They’ve got the same core archetypes as anyone else, shaped by what energizes them.
- Skills matter, but they don’t tell you why someone leads the way they do. Two people can be effective strategists, but one might be pulled forward by fresh ideas while the other depends on clear milestones.
- Things start to break down when a leader’s core drive clashes with the team or culture around them. A change-loving leader might push for reinvention that feels unneeded. One who values achievement might overlook teammates who are motivated by craftsmanship or collaboration. That kind of mismatch leads to frustration – even when everyone is skilled and well-intentioned.
stop designing jobs for the average worker (yes but this makes avg people look bad so eh)
In The Intern, Robert De Niro plays a 70-year-old retiree who finds renewed purpose through an internship at a high-energy startup. The movie offers a feel-good story about late-career reinvention and generational teamwork. But most older workers don’t get that chance. They’re often left out of roles where they could still contribute – especially roles that tap into their need for autonomy and purpose.
While age is one visible aspect of diversity, the real story lies in people’s hidden drivers – what actually motivates them at work. And those drivers shift in consistent patterns. Younger workers are drawn to novelty and influence, often fitting the Explorer or Pioneer archetypes. As people grow older, they become more focused on stability, meaning, and independence – traits common among Givers and Artisans. Gender plays a role, too. Across nearly all countries studied, women consistently prioritize flexibility and fair compensation more than men.
- A role that fuels one person’s energy might leave someone else exhausted – it all comes down to how well the job lines up with what drives them. That’s why more companies are rethinking the system. Instead of forcing everyone into a narrow mold, they’re building HR systems that account for the six archetypes. This means tailoring how you hire, train, and promote based on what actually drives each employee. The result? Better engagement, stronger performance, and teams that stick around longer.
- Rethinking HR also means ditching the idea that the only way up is into management. Some of your best people may not want to lead teams.
- Looking ahead, this kind of flexibility will be non-negotiable. As workforces age, fertility rates drop, and values shift, companies need to meet people where they are. That might mean phased retirements, faster tracks for high-energy Pioneers, or upskilling programs tailored to different motivators. The future of work won’t be won by those who manage people best – it’ll be led by those who understand what makes them tick.