Pop psych structures and archetypes are sometimes useful for thinking about ourselves, our relationships with others, and our orgs.

I think they can be overwrought, though, and used precisely when they're supposed to be a "if you squint you might see these things around you" way.

I'm rather a fan of the Biblical "raise a child in the way they should go and they won't depart from it"; train someone with the essentials of the their job, reinforce the good habits, and (if they take ownership) they will continue to do those things they were taught even when they are no longer closely managed.

The above presumes "close management" at the beginning of the "life" of someone new to the job, and then as they age in the organization "distant management", and eventually leadership.

close management != micro management, consider close management to be the same kind of process a child goes through when learning. First we show them, then we explain to them what we did, then they try it with supervision (this is where most of my learning occurs), then we let them do it without supervision.

You could think of this in terms of how big a learner's feedback loop from others is: at the start their feedback loop from "engineer dad" is tight; they get feedback very often, correction and discipline where necessary. As they learn, the feedback loop loosens and they have a chance to move into their "engineering teens". Eventually the feedback loop is loosely coupled; "engineer dad" now advises infrequently and offers guidance and advice when requested.

;) My little framework is as useful as any other pop-psych, you just have to squint at your org/experiences to see it.