Matt Abrahams: When it comes to work, and our relationships to work,
and with our work, we often fail to focus on our personal motivations.
My name is Matt Abrahams, and I teach strategic communication at
Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Welcome to Think Fast, talk Smart, the podcast.
Today I'm very excited to speak with James Root.
James is a senior partner at Bain & Company and Chair of Bain Futures.
James is a fellow at Hughes Hall College, Cambridge, and an
adjunct professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
His latest book is The Archetype Effect.
Welcome, James.
I am really excited for our conversation.
James Root: Delighted to be here.
Thank you, Matt.
Matt Abrahams: Thank you.
Shall we get started?
James Root: Yeah, let's do it.
Matt Abrahams: Excellent.
Among the many things that you study, you spend a lot of time
thinking about the future of work.
What insights can you share about what work looks like in the future?
James Root: Yes.
That's the question on everybody's minds.
I think work is going to continue to be messy for a while.
It is already.
Gig work, remote work, self-managing teams, cross-functional teams, an
aging workforce, skill gaps, and then this ever expanding universe of AI.
It's stressful for many workers, I think, including with people who
manage talent, it's hard for them.
And part of the problem is that we spend so much effort thinking about
skills and tasks and jobs, but almost no time thinking about motivations.
And as soon as we stop to understand motivations, what pops up is
unfortunately how poorly suited our talent systems really are to both
recognize and then adapt to what turns out to be a very rich diversity
of motivations people have at work.
Those assumptions go back fifty years, longer even, and they're built
for some kind of average worker.
They sort of assume everybody is moving through the system, trying to be better
as a worker or better as a manager.
Trying to rise up through the organization, more spans, more
layers, closer to the leadership team.
Personal motivations don't matter at all.
Every aspect of the standard organization model that we've grown
up with is built around this idea.
Rewards, reporting structures, decision rights, performance reviews.
The reality today, I think is very different, both from an
organization point of view and from an individual's point of view.
There are plenty of roles now where personal progress and success and
results are not defined by taking in just another step up the ladder.
That's all from the point of view of the organization.
From the individual's point of view, we've done this wonderful thing,
we've said, let's empower people.
Ask them to tell us who they really are at work and what they really want.
And guess what?
When we did that, it turns out it was a myth all along that everybody
wants to just climb up the next step on the greasy corporate pole.
Some still like the idea of the corporate ladder.
Great.
Others do not.
What people want from work is highly varied.
There is no such thing as an average worker anymore, and so that would
be okay if these talent systems have kept up, but they haven't.
I'm afraid that their light years behind, it's been routine for decades.
Our sales teams, marketing teams, customer teams, product teams just become more
and more specialized and develop more and more individualized solutions and products
and offerings based upon segmentation.
And that kind of de-averaging of what customers like has obviously gone crazy in
the last twenty years now that we live in a world of social and search and location
tracking and online payments and so forth.
So, you know, Google and Instagram and XiaoHongShu and Byte Dance and Nava and
Kakao and LINE, et cetera, they know an incredible amount of about us, of course.
But the mystery is why haven't we applied that same thinking to our workers?
Why do the firms who are selling us products or increasingly selling
our profile to advertisers know so much more about our motivations
than the firms we actually work for?
Matt Abrahams: The point you just made there about why are we not looking
at the motivations of employees, I think is a really profound point.
Clearly work is changing and one of those changes, as you alluded
to, is that workers, in terms of their age and generations,
are increasing in the workplace.
It's possible now to have four different generations all working together.
What are your thoughts on how leaders can facilitate productive work and
communication when you have people born from different generations
having to interact with each other?
James Root: We did some work.
It said, I think about a hundred and fifty million jobs are going to move
to people who are over fifty-five years old by the end of this decade.
So it's an extraordinary number and you know, we all know why, populations
are aging, more lives are lengthening, fewer people entering the workforce,
fertility and people spending longer in education and so forth.
So no choice.
Organizations have no choice.
They're gonna have to deal with this.
You know, one piece of good news, I remember there was a very persuasive
piece of OECD research from 2020 I think it was, that said, these
multi-gen workforces are more productive and have better retention rates.
So I think we need to update that.
Somebody needs to do some more work on that, but that was at
least encouraging back then.
So I think it's very important.
I'm glad you raised this topic because I also think there's a lot of confusion
about older workers and about Gen Z.
I wanna tackle both of them briefly and start with the older workers.
On the one hand, what do we know about older workers?
What we know is that what they want as they age can change.
It's not the same as other age groups.
Around fifty-five-ish the importance of good compensation, which from
most cohorts, genders, countries, is the number one job criterion starts,
to fade, other things rise up.
Interesting work becomes very important, autonomy becomes important, and by
the time you get to sixty, actually interesting work has become the number one
most important thing for these workers.
So the desire for autonomy shows up as a way of controlling hours.
People want to do stair steps down from full employment to full retirement,
but again, most firms just are not offering that kind of solution.
There's also confusion about Gen Z.
I get this question all the time.
What are we gonna do about Gen Z?
It's so difficult.
It's so different from everybody else.
It's so hard.
And I think that framing is very misleading.
Gen Z are not all one thing.
Yes, there are some overlays, no doubt, as there are for Millennials
as there are for Gen X. There are some Gen Z who wanna change the world.
Some Gen Z who wanna just have some stretching milestones
set and then achieve them.
Some Gen Z who want to just have lots of variety, change jobs all the time.
Some Gen Z, who the job is just a job.
It's a means to an end of something that happens outside work.
So it would be a terrible mistake to assume that we have to be tempted
to, to say that Gen Z are all alike.
So the path to come to your multi-gen question, the path or high functioning,
multi-generational workforce is, it's challenging, but it's to create jobs that
are adapted for the different age groups.
Uh, some physical changes, differences and capabilities and so forth, but
that don't just assume that each of those age groups wants exactly
the same thing because they don't.
Neither the older workers all want the same thing, nor the Millennials
all want the same thing, nor the Gen Z all want the same thing.
So success for me is design roles suited for workers at each life stage that still
recognize the intrinsic motivations of each individual, rather than just assumed
and more packaged into one cohort.
Matt Abrahams: I'm sensing a theme among your responses, which is a really
understanding and appreciating motivation of workers in general, but then looking
generationally and understanding how that actually helps us to think about the
programs we need to design and the ways we need to assess success in those roles.
So I like thinking about motivation in communication is critical.
What motivates the audience, what motivates your
workers, what motivates you?
And I really appreciate how you are highlighting the value that
has for some of the challenges that we are facing in the workplace.
I wanna switch now to the book you wrote.
I first came across the idea of archetypes when I studied Carl Jung back in college.
Your new book is called The Archetype Effect.
Can you tell us what you mean by archetype and what are the six
types that you have identified?
James Root: I felt strongly that we needed something that recognized the
importance of motivations because they often get lost in the shuffle when
we're talking about tasks and jobs and skills, all of which are critical.
Tasks, and jobs and skills are critical, but motivations, in
my view, are also critical.
We needed something simple, some language that we could use with our
firms to talk about current jobs, future choices and career paths.
So it had to be data driven.
We went out, we talked to almost fifty thousand people in the
world, nineteen countries.
Men, women, high income, low income, highly educated, not very educated,
urban, rural, all types of jobs.
It was an absolute privilege to listen to them.
Tell us about what motivates them.
And we had all this data and at one point it was quite concerning that it
would be hard to find patterns because people are very personal about this.
Individual in their own influences.
But yeah, the patterns appeared and resolved themselves into six archetypes.
So let me quickly bang through the six and hopefully people listening can go
and take the little quiz that's on the website and find out what they are.
The first we call the giver, and this is, in simple terms, it's
the person who finds motivation at work by helping others thrive.
So work is service for them.
They're not particularly motivated by money.
Very empathetic typically.
So strong team spirit, very much care about relationships at work, but their
mojo is, I wanna help other people shine.
The operator.
By the way, this is the biggest cohort.
It's twenty-four percent of the world's work population.
The operators are not looking for meaning, self-worth, or purpose at work.
Work as a means to an end.
They're not particularly motivated by status.
They don't wanna stand out at work in particular, not risk takers at all.
They wanna do a good job, but they like stability and predictability, and
at the same time, very team oriented.
So often the backbone of your teams.
Artisans, which are about seventeen percent of the working population.
They wanna do work that fascinates them and inspires them, and
they wanna keep practicing.
I always think about sushi chefs when I think about artisans,
I can't get it outta my head.
So this idea that I'm gonna go and just keep trying to get better every day.
Very high quality standards, pursuing mastery basically.
And they enjoy their expertise being of value, but they don't want to, don't
send me any forms from HR to fill in because I just don't wanna do that stuff.
We're not particularly focused on the camaraderie aspects of work
that's important to some of these other archetypes, so leave me
alone to get on with what I do best and I'll be very valuable to you.
Explorers, they just value freedom to do new things all the time, and
they will make incredible trade offs.
They'll trade off money, they'll trade off status and titles for the chance
to continue to try new things in life.
And a very pragmatic approach to their own development, they only
skill up as far as they think they're gonna need in the current job.
And work is not a provider of a sense of identity for them.
The last two, the strivers want to make something of themselves at work.
They want to be motivated by success.
They value status.
They value the milestones and the recognitions.
Sometimes the compensation that goes with those recognitions, not
risk takers, they forward plan.
They get a lot done, and they're often willing to tolerate less
variety, so long as it's in the service of their longer term goals.
And then the last and smallest cohort, we call them the pioneers, only ten
percent of the workforce, they're on a mission to change the world in some way.
They form these very strong views about how things should be and try to sort of
bend the will of the organization and the people around 'em against that vision.
Sort of a move fast, break things idea, perhaps, is the way I would simplify that.
But these archetypes, unlike some of the other systems, they're
not a test, they're an assistant.
The idea is kind of a shorthand guide to help you understand more about who you
are at work, why you hate your job, why you love your job, why you thrive, why you
don't thrive, and to get a deeper insight into, you know, sources of fulfillment.
And they also can turn a traditional kind of career dialogue, which is top
down, the firm tells you, these are the skills we think you should develop
next, into a two-way discussion, which says, this is, I've got these skills
and, but I'm motivated about this.
I'd like to change, I'd like to do this, I'd like to try that.
It can change the dialogue between employer and employee in ways
that I hope are very healthy.
Matt Abrahams: I really appreciate you articulating the six archetypes
as you've identified them.
I see utility here in many ways.
From an organization's point of view, as you said, it can help you
build career plans for people and help have a conversation that is
enriching rather than dogmatic.
It also causes an organization and leaders in that organization to think about
what kind of blend and mix do I want.
I don't want just all of one category.
So diversity of approaches certainly matters.
And then from an individual's point of view, it's very powerful to think
about and reflect on what motivates me and what brings me fulfillment.
And having categories can help put us on a path to see what it
is that's really important to us.
And I assume it can help us understand how and why we might gravitate
towards certain people versus others.
When I reflect on the definitions you gave in certain phases of my life, I feel like
I was one archetype and as I have matured and experienced things, I've changed.
Is this something we can exert agency over?
Is this like a personality trait?
What, what have you found in terms of our sense of agency in all of this?
James Root: Yes.
Such a good question.
So I have found some people just are who they are at work their
entire career, and that's fine.
Good for them.
Bravo.
The motivation does not change even deep into their late
fifties into their sixties.
Others, and I would probably say more, have an evolution.
And the typical journey, I'm not saying it's happened to you or to me, but the
typical journey that the data reveals is that pioneers and strivers, when young,
become artisans and givers as they age.
And if you go back and think about the definitions that
I gave, I won't redo them.
It's intuitive.
Artisans, perhaps I wanna be left alone a little bit more to do
things I'm very interested in.
And givers, I want to give back.
I wanna mentor, I want to coach, I want to be able to pay it back
as I get deeper into my career.
But I wanna answer your question head on because while those two things are
happening, I don't think we should actively try to change our archetype.
I think it can happen to us because of circumstance or conditions or
current roles, or just our own personalities and characters evolving.
But I think become aware of what you are now and become aware of what the
critical talent around you is, and when that happens, usually two things emerge.
The two questions that emerge are, why do I feel what I
feel about aspects of my work?
And why do I feel, to your point, why do I feel what I feel about
certain other people at work?
And what I have come to believe just from thinking about this a lot and talking
to many firms is that most firms have unconsciously built their talent systems
around one archetype, and it may reach back to the founders, it may reach back to
some seminal moment in the firm's history.
Or it may just be that those sort of norm assumptions that I referenced
at the beginning of our conversation, that everyone's just trying to
plot up the ladder, in other words, everyone's a striver, are what embody
the talent systems that we've built.
And think about your own organization, which is the archetype that
talent management is favoring.
Who's getting promoted?
Who are the people that we're putting in front of the organization to say, be
like her, be like him, subconsciously.
And then go, okay, now what about all the people who are not that archetype?
How does it feel for them?
I find this, when I get into this conversation at various
firms, it's a little bit of a jaw dropping moment for people 'cause
they haven't considered that.
They've done the very best they can to design the system and fairness
and equality and all the rest of it.
But they haven't thought about the fact that person just doesn't care about the
things that we're rewarding that much.
That giver wants to be recognized and rewarded for being a culture carrier
and helping other people thrive.
Not being in the limelight themselves, but we don't recognize that person doing that.
So I think, don't try to change, but change can happen
and welcome it if it arrives.
Matt Abrahams: I am struck by this notion of there are pathways
that archetypes tend to follow over time, and that's interesting.
As you advocated, we might not want to actively try to change ours, just see
how things unfold and what feels right.
But it's interesting to me that there are different paths that tend to
occur, and it seems to me that as we are looking for mentorship and growth
in our careers, that if we are to understand that, hey, somebody who
starts out as a striver, perhaps earlier in their career, knowing that I might
land somewhere else, in a different archetype, searching it out, mentors,
tools, advice and guidance, that can lead me there might be very beneficial.
So I think that not only does this help us as an individual, but it might be
interesting for organizations to think about leveraging what you've learned
about archetypes in terms of how they help people go through their careers.
James Root: I couldn't agree more with what you just said.
Matt Abrahams: Before we end, I'd like to ask you three questions.
One I create just for you, and the other two are similar to everyone
I've interviewed across the show.
Are you up for this?
James Root: Definitely.
Matt Abrahams: One of the things I found really interesting about your
background is that you've lived and worked in numerous countries.
What advice do you have for people working in cultures other than their own that will
help them be more effective in their work?
James Root: A few things.
Find a mentor or a coach as soon as you can after you
land, or actually even before.
And spend a lot of time with them.
Read everything you can about the culture you're coming to.
For at least the first year in the new country do not say, when we
did this in my old country, it was like this, because nobody cares.
It's humbling working in other cultures.
So it shows you there are dozens of ways to lead teams and run
meetings and define success.
So just be quiet and listen for a while.
You gotta adapt how you ask for input as well, because
there are some flat cultures.
The power distance is a certain number and open dialogue works, but
there are others where it does not work in hierarchical structures, so
don't compute silence with agreement.
Matt Abrahams: This notion of looking outside yourself for some helping guidance
makes a lot of sense, being observant, appreciating that it is different and it's
going to be different, and that's okay.
Question number two, who is a communicator that you admire and why?
James Root: Christopher Hitchens.
He was a British American author, journalist, wrote books about culture
and politics and religion and literature.
Died horribly young, more than a decade ago.
If you want a sample type in Christopher Hitchens, University of Toronto,
free speech 2006 into YouTube.
He had this ability in written work, particularly in spoken, just to kinda
marshal quotations and arguments with facts and searing intellectual honesty
into this warm blanket of perfect English.
Matt Abrahams: I will absolutely look into that and appreciate anybody who can be
that eloquent and also that informative.
Final question for you.
What are the first three ingredients that go into a successful communication recipe?
James Root: Audience analysis.
Got to do that first.
Who are you talking to?
What do they already know?
Et cetera, et cetera.
Second is, you must have something interesting to say.
Say it precisely, say it briefly with one or two arrestingly, memorable words
or phrases that you'd like the audience to remember when they get home at night.
Third, I think be entertaining.
Don't tell jokes, but relatable stories, analogies, metaphors, things that go just
beyond sharing the facts and the opinions.
That feels important.
Oh, I got, sorry.
I'm gonna grab one more.
I know you said three.
If you have to use slides.
Make them very few, mostly pictures.
Matt Abrahams: Amen to that last point.
I usually penalize people for adding a fourth, but that is so
important that I'm gonna not only echo it, I'm gonna reward it.
So know your audience, make sure you're providing value that's memorable, and
then also engage your audience to help.
Well, James, you have been very engaging yourself.
You've given us an insight into ourselves and into how potential organizations can
help us all be more successful at work.
And you've helped us better understand what the future of work might look like.
Thank you for your time and thank you for your insights.
James Root: Thank you so much, Matt.
Very much enjoyed the conversation with you.
Matt Abrahams: Thank you for joining us for another episode of
Think Fast Talk Smart, the podcast.
To learn more about intergenerational work, please listen to episode
167 with Bob McCann and to better understand motivation, check out
episode 104 with Katy Milkman.
This episode was produced by Katherine Reed, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrahams.
Our music is from Floyd Wonder.
With special thanks to Podium Podcast Company.
Please find us on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.
Be sure to subscribe and rate us.
Also follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram.
And check out fastersmarter.io for deep dive videos, English language
learning content and our newsletter.
Please consider our premium offering for extended Deep Thinks episodes,
Ask Matt Anythings, and much more at fastersmarter.io/premium.