I recently watched a video classifying workforce types that was quite insightful. I want to share it and discuss it from a management perspective.
The 5 Levels of Employees
Type 1: Knows they are struggling but feels no shame, doesn't know how to improve, and doesn't want to. (The Apathetic).
Type 2: Wants to improve, knows how, but it all stays in their head. (The Dreamer).
Type 3: Capable but fears responsibility.
Example: "If it succeeds, I take credit; if it fails, the boss pays." They only act if success is 100% guaranteed; otherwise, they back out.
Type 4: The "Superman". Highly productive, can do anything, but goes home and cries from stress.
Trait: Cannot delegate. They fear others won't do as good a job as they do. Excellent individual contributors but poor managers (micromanagers).
Type 5 (Type 4 Plus): Has the capability of Type 4 but knows how to delegate.
They transfer work and authority to Types 3, 2, and 1. They focus only on people problems and macro strategies.
Summary: To succeed, you need capability and accountability. But to get rich and scale, you must master "Delegation".
The "Family Recipe" Scaling Problem
Have you ever wondered why some famous local restaurants only have one location, while others open dozens of branches?
The core reason is delegation. They cannot package their "secret family recipe" to transfer to another manager. This is a classic problem of standardization that I will discuss in another post.
Real Story: The "Type 2.5" Fresher
I currently manage two Freshers. One of them has been a headache recently. Fresh out of school, skills below par, and lacking a progressive attitude.
When asked to choose between "Core Development" or "Operations/Helpdesk", they chose Development. But in reality:
Free time is spent on the phone.
Programming tasks are met with complaints of difficulty.
Failed to meet minimum standards despite multiple chances.
My Decision:
I've categorized them as someone suitable only for predefined, small tasks—mostly operational support. I realized I can't change a person's character; I can only place them in a position that fits their capacity. The current environment isn't high-pressure enough for them to change, and I refuse to lose sleep wondering, "If I assign this, will it get done?"
Q&A
Q: If they don't meet requirements, why not fire them?
A: I work in a specific environment: a state agency. It involves complex relationships (nepotism) and other constraints. I don't have the full authority to fire personnel unilaterally. The challenge here is to "use people like using wood" — finding the right place to fit them in rather than discarding them.