Which Employee Type Are YOU?

[EJCC]

When I'm not confident at all, at work, I'm a clinger. But when I'm too confident, I'm a power grabber.

In the middle... :queenie:

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

If I were to pick two I would say the loner or the challenger, more of the former.

 

[ygolo]

I don't really like theories like this, because it just seems like someone wrote down their anecdotal observations and made it a "system". Between the Forer Effect, and simply covering a wide swath of behaviors, theories like this are like a mental infection...essentially not falsifiable.

But since I still strangely enjoy these parlor-game-like categorizations of people. I would say I have pretty strong loner tendencies, and space cadet tendencies...this combination can make me seem very much like a slacker in the short run (though over the long run, I out-produce the average worker).

 

[sprinkles]

I don't really like theories like this, because it just seems like someone wrote down their anecdotal observations and made it a "system". Between the Forer Effect, and simply covering a wide swath of behaviors, theories like this are like a mental infection...essentially not falsifiable.

But since I still strangely enjoy these parlor-game-like categorizations of people. I would say I have pretty strong loner tendencies, and space cadet tendencies...this combination can make me seem very much like a slacker in the short run (though over the long run, I out-produce the average worker).

I don't think this is even any kind of theory or categorization of workers in general in the sense that all workers fall into one of these seven types...

It's just 'seven employees that drive managers crazy'. What it says on the tin. I'm pretty sure all seven types exist, but it isn't a way of defining employees on any kind of scale, it's just pointing out these 7 that are bothersome out of possibly many.

 

[Tigerlily]

The Loner, as I prefer working on my own. Keep in mind, the article is about managing difficult employees, and I don't consider myself to be difficult in the work place.

 

[cascadeco]

I don't really like theories like this, because it just seems like someone wrote down their anecdotal observations and made it a "system". Between the Forer Effect, and simply covering a wide swath of behaviors, theories like this are like a mental infection...essentially not falsifiable.

But since I still strangely enjoy these parlor-game-like categorizations of people. I would say I have pretty strong loner tendencies, and space cadet tendencies...this combination can make me seem very much like a slacker in the short run (though over the long run, I out-produce the average worker).

This statement is interesting to me, because I feel the same can be said of mbti. Is not mbti - especially its origins - rather anecdotal and categorical in nature? Isn't that the point?

---
[MENTION=4515]wolfy[/MENTION] - yeah, maybe you're right... I guess they aren't opposite.

 

[Mal12345]

Oh man, I think I'm a clinger! That sucks! I think it comes from only really entering the workforce fully in my 30s.

Same here, and it was with both feet first in an industry I didn't understand the workings of. So at first I was very clingy, i.e., asking for help all the time and feeling like it was me against the world.

 

[Mal12345]

I don't really like theories like this, because it just seems like someone wrote down their anecdotal observations and made it a "system". Between the Forer Effect, and simply covering a wide swath of behaviors, theories like this are like a mental infection...essentially not falsifiable.

But since I still strangely enjoy these parlor-game-like categorizations of people. I would say I have pretty strong loner tendencies, and space cadet tendencies...this combination can make me seem very much like a slacker in the short run (though over the long run, I out-produce the average worker).

It's only a parlor game if you don't apply it to reality. The page I cited gives advice on how managers can deal more effectively with these types of employees. Did you visit the page in the OP?

 

[Ivy]

Same here, and it was with both feet first in an industry I didn't understand the workings of. So at first I was very clingy, i.e., asking for help all the time and feeling like it was me against the world.

Yep! I've only been "officially" working for this company (not contracting as a free agent) for about six months. And I never did many of the things I'm currently doing, when I worked for them as a freelancer. I pretty much just wrote stuff for five years prior to this. Publishing is a completely different skillset.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Half Slacker, Half Power Grabber

I don't seek out more work than I feel like dealing with at any one time.

At different points in my life the slacker or the power grabber have been winning the battle, but I only win when I reasonably balance the two.

When I say slacking though, I mean reading the news like I do everyday. That takes a while and I'm a pretty quick reader.

 

[ygolo]

I don't think this is even any kind of theory or categorization of workers in general in the sense that all workers fall into one of these seven types...

It's just 'seven employees that drive managers crazy'. What it says on the tin. I'm pretty sure all seven types exist, but it isn't a way of defining employees on any kind of scale, it's just pointing out these 7 that are bothersome out of possibly many.

Yes. See if you can sit down for a couple of hours and come up with your own system of 5 or 7 or whatever number of behaviors you find annoying in a context you are familiar with and suggest things that might improve them. If you can manage the concentration required, I doubt it would take you more than a few hours to make a very similar looking list for some other scenario.

This statement is interesting to me, because I feel the same can be said of mbti. Is not mbti - especially its origins - rather anecdotal and categorical in nature? Isn't that the point?

It kind of is. I have become frustrated with the preponderance of theories like this. Many take on a life of their own, over time, like Jungian functions, Myers-Briggs, and Enneagram.

I suppose if people tread carefully, they can be used in a way that is beneficial. But a business consultant can relatively easily make these "things I've observed, and what I believe should be done about them" systems fairly easily.

What gives one person's anecdote based intuitive description system more validity than another's? Why for instance is the Riso-Hudson Ennegram anymore valid than [MENTION=8595]Zang[/MENTION] 's metagram, or any of the other variations of the enneagram?

It's only a parlor game if you don't apply it to reality. The page I cited gives advice on how managers can deal more effectively with these types of employees. Did you visit the page in the OP?

I did visit the page linked in the OP. That's what I based my comments on. I even looked at a lot of the consulting services that Marie G. McIntyre offers on the rest of her website, and looked her up on linked-in. I have had a fair amount of dealings with HR people like her.

Unfortunately, saying the "right things" in a corporate environment, things that create a superficial instinctual reaction, will get you very far, even if there is no empirical basis for the things you say. She may have some empirical basis for what she says, but that aspect is not well advertised.

 

[Mal12345]

I did visit the page linked in the OP. That's what I based my comments on. I even looked at a lot of the consulting services that Marie G. McIntyre offers on the rest of her website, and looked her up on linked-in. I have had a fair amount of dealings with HR people like her.

Unfortunately, saying the "right things" in a corporate environment, things that create a superficial instinctual reaction, will get you very far, even if there is no empirical basis for the things you say. She may have some empirical basis for what she says, but that aspect is not well advertised.

So it's not a parlor game, as I said.

 

[ygolo]

So it's not a parlor game, as I said.

Oh. I thought my use of hyperbole, in this instance, was self-evident. I thought you were objecting to criticism of the veracity of the system in question.

If you merely, objecting to my use of hyperbole, then sure. Of course her system is not a parlor game in the sense of a Victorian era game used for socializing.

But, I think the analogy is apt. We are essentially just "shooting the breeze" here on the forum, discussing typology systems that we find interesting with little regard for whether the system is true or useful.

As for its use in corporations...if she has no empirical backing, I see what she is doing as attempting to institutionalize her own biases into corporate culture (which is, itself, comprised of previously institutionalized myths based on anecdotes).

 

[Mal12345]

Oh. I thought my use of hyperbole, in this instance, was self-evident. I thought you were objecting to criticism of the veracity of the system in question.

If you merely, objecting to my use of hyperbole, then sure. Of course her system is not a parlor game in the sense of a Victorian era game used for socializing.

But, I think the analogy is apt. We are essentially just "shooting the breeze" here on the forum, discussing typology systems that we find interesting with little regard for whether the system is true or useful.

As for its use in corporations...if she has no empirical backing, I see what she is doing as attempting to institutionalize her own biases into corporate culture (which is, itself, comprised of previously institutionalized myths based on anecdotes).

Why worry about employee types anyway, when you can just fire the ones you don't like?

 

[ygolo]

Why worry about employee types anyway, when you can just fire the ones you don't like?

Because sometimes, the people you don't like are exactly the ones you need.

They can keep you honest, and provide perspective.

 

[Mal12345]

Because sometimes, the people you don't like are exactly the ones you need.

They can keep you honest, and provide perspective.

So you are a boss of some kind? Really?

 

[Anonymous]

Space cadet and loner would be my primary types, I think. I do have (or have had) slacker/clinger tendencies, but that's more due to the nature of my position than who I am as a worker. Slacker, because I'm help desk, and if there aren't any calls, there isn't any work. I try to make it productive by learning more industry-related stuff, but sometimes I wind up on dumb websites. Clinger, because I wound up in the job with no qualifications. The position itself was very much entry level, but it's a small company, and there was no training protocol, so it was a sink or swim situation. Wound up annoying several people with questions for a few months there until I finally got the hang of it.

 

[ygolo]

So you are a boss of some kind? Really?

Not now. But I have been.

 

[garbage]

Power Grabber, definitely. Control stuff and be on top of stuff, otherwise it'll control and be on top of you.

, is my motto in unhealthy moments and uncertain times.

Also, +1 to the stuff [MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION]'s been saying.

 

[greenfairy]

Space Cadet who is capable of organizing information, Clinger (when I'm insecure and confused and find myself making mistakes all the time) who is perfectly willing to express ideas and opinions. I don't mind being managed, but I hate being micromanaged because it's condescending and makes me nervous. In that case, if I have a boss who is mean and critical I become a Challenger and start looking for a new job.