This is a very very rough draft of the outline for what the Archetypes look like in a community (mostly thrown up here from TextPad notes). It is important to note that all of these community archetypes play highly positive roles in various communities. Any tension caused by the ‘clashing’ of personality types is good for balance. Not all Archetypes exist in every community, but quite often pair up to make up certain types of (or fingerprints for) communities.
You may either recognize yourself below, or fall under a couple of categories. I’ve paired each up roughly with the Meyers-Briggs classifications, which I know are very North American centric, but they seemed to map very nicely to many of the personalities I’ve seen along the way. If you want to take a test to see what you are, go here: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp Further explanation of the ‘types’ is here: http://www.typelogic.com/
Keep in mind that the mappings to the Meyers-Briggs is somewhat imperfect (although as I read more into it, I may find stronger ties), so if you have alternative suggestions, they are welcome as well. 
Caretakers – ENFJ
Caretakers are the people people. They can sense when someone needs more support and will drop everything to go and give that support. They quite often neglect their own needs for that of others and are at risk for being taken advantage of. These powerfully charismatic types make everyone feel safe around them and are essential to communities that have a more mentoring attitude than meritocratic attitude. Caretakers will swoop in and navigate newbies through the early stages of their community involvement
The thing to watch out for with Caretakers, is that they don’t know how to delegate and will often take on too much, burning themselves out. They won’t understand exactly why they are feeling the need to distance themselves from the community, but if their needs aren’t met (or their burden isn’t relieved), they will eventually back away.
Leaders – ENTJ
Leaders can’t stand to let things idle for too long. As soon as there is an opening, they will come along and direct a project. Once in that steward position, there is no stopping the leader. If pointed in the right direction, Leaders will be your saviors in getting things done.
Leaders need to be teamed up with Creators and Caretakers in order to be effective. They may sometimes have good ideas, but quite often, they are too effective at leading people astray. Think the Pied Piper.
Creators – ENFP
Super creative and full of ideas, Creators are always thinking up new ways to make things better. They are spontaneous, often zany and fun, and attention getters. They are also very strongly opinionated (but usually right) about direction. They hate structure and bureaucracy and have high ethical standards.
Easily distracted, you’ll want to let the Creator know they are listened to…and really actually listen to them because they are pretty innovative in their thoughts.
Gamers – ESTP
Gamers are thrill seekers. They love competition and challenge. Give a Gamer a system in which s/he can win points and keep upping the ante, and you will have her/him for life. Very very strategic, Gamers get the most pleasure out of numbers, winning and status.
If you put Gamers in with too many Spectators, Workers and Caretakers, you run the risk of major conflict. Gamers need to have motivation and love to show off their winnings…they also respect other Gamers’ prowess, so it’s best to keep the Gamers together. Dreamers work well with Gamers, though.
Gate Keepers – ESTJ
Gate Keepers are the members of the community who believe strongly in a meritocracy and will make certain that every new member pays his/her dues before proceeding (“No free rides here”). Gate Keepers are also very good at reminding others of the rules and guidelines. They make excellent filters for ‘bozos’ and ‘drive-bys’.
Gate Keepers and Caregivers may play Bad Cop Good Cop with Newbies. Once you have won the respect of a Gate Keeper, it is hard to lose it.
Hot Doggers – ENTP
Hot Doggers love taking a look at information and finding ways to glue them together in new, unorthodox ways but what they love even more is being recognized for their wit and cleverness. Think “The Comic Book Guy” on The Simpsons. They often have a great deal of deep knowledge that should be heeded, but because they can tend to be terse in their delivery, many will ignore them.
Hot Doggers are very smart and if pointed in the right direction, can be invaluable for problem-solving and getting things done right. Pair them with the Planners and Leaders, and expect them to irritate the Peace Makers, as they will ruffle feathers along the way.
Networkers – ESFP
Networkers have the gift of gab. A Networker will walk into a party or enter a social network and befriend 90% of the people in no time. A Networker is good at making people laugh and feel good, so they get along with people easily. They are amazing storytellers and quite cultured, so they know a little about many subjects.
Networkers have more surface than deep relationships, so you can’t always count on the Networker to stick around and be incredibly loyal. For a networker, the thrill is in the networking, not in cultivating deep relationships. There is always another network to conquer.
Peacemakers – ESFJ
Peacemakers have a strong feeling towards balance and harmony. S/he will strike out at those who threaten it. S/he will also exert all of the power s/he has in order to keep the peace. Peacemakers don’t care who is right or wrong, only that harmony is maintained.
Peacemakers are hyper-sensitive to unrest, so it is possible that a tumultuous community will eventually lose all of its Peacemakers to frustration an anger. It is crucial that Peacemakers don’t feel that they are holding up the peace for everyone. Much like the Caretaker, they will suffer burnout.
Workers – ISFJ
Workers are characterized by their need to serve others. Being introverts, they get more satisfaction from knowing they did a good job to support others than being recognized for it at all. In fact, in some extreme cases, they will actually react negatively to being rewarded for their hard work. The hard work is reward enough. Workers are reliable and loyal as well as efficient and accurate.
Workers need lots of instruction and loyalty in return. Being told they are appreciated is crucial. They will never tell you what they need, so you have to be highly cognizant of where they are at. To win their trust, show your appreciation appropriately and win their trust completely by being loyal back.
Wanderers – ISFP
Another word for a Wanderer is Experimenter as a Wanderer isn’t one who is likely to commit. These are free birds, flitting from one place to another and don’t want to be tied down. They want to explore before they commit and even once they commit, it takes a great deal for them to become really engaged.
Wanderers can often be very much like Gamers, and if you catch their attention long enough, they will spend significant time in your community. You have to keep the challenge up and the experience high.
Organizers – ISTJ
Organizers are, well, organized, devoted and responsible. Organizers are much like Workers, but with much more drive. They are very methodical and like to stick to standards and logical ordering. Organizers perform well on wikis, often adopting the nickname ‘Wiktator’ – restoring order to haphazard ramblings and slapdash pages of information.
If anything seems too erratic and out of control, you will lose your Organizers, which is a loss no one can afford. Defending their sense of order is a good thing as they may come across a bit terse to others who are more casual about their process. It is best to give an Organizer a great deal of responsibility on a site.
Critics – INTP
Critics are the types of community member that will always point out your type-o’s and very rarely give you positive feedback. This is not a bad thing, you just have to take it with a grain of salt. Critics are there to help. They wouldn’t do it if they didn’t care. Critics also don’t often understand nuanced jokes and will correct you if you use non-logical grammar (ie. “The Best Game EV-AR”).
Critics are also good to put with Gamers and Dreamers as they have a competitive edge to them. They are quietly competitive compared to the other two, but incredibly responsive to positive feedback themselves.
Promoters – ISTP
When Promoters get an idea, there is no stopping them. They usually lie dormant in a community until they have an idea or an event that requires attention, then they take over for the time period necessary to be heard and have action taken.
On the negative side of Promoters, they will mow down the needs of others in order to get their point across. A good example of this is the recent outbreak of people promoting the anti-Flickr censorship in the comments of photos unrelated to the cause. Still, pointing Promoters in the right direction will create all sorts of good buzz for a project.
Spectators – INFJ
Spectators are those, who, after a trust relationship is created, will tell you that they’ve read everything you’ve ever written. They are not dormant, passive people, but they don’t have the need to be ‘heard’.
Spectators may not be leaving comments or very active in forums, but their presence there is crucial for getting the word out further. They are every bit as passionate about the communities they observe as those with high participation levels. They will probably end up resenting a ‘points’ driven model that appeals to Gamers as this is not their style. The key to Spectators is to create enough content to keep their interest and to create safe spaces (and offline meetups) to tease them out from behind the scenes occasionally.
Planners – INTJ
Planners are your project managers and they are the best. A planner has the uncanny ability to imagine an event or an experience and account for every little detail. They are good delegators and hard workers. They are also extremely hard on themselves and strict perfectionists.
Planners expect a great deal from others and would not do well paired with Dreamers, Spectators or Networkers. To them, these types are flaky. Planners are people you want to pair with Workers and Organizers to move forward methodically on a project, especially an event.
Dreamers – INFP
Dreamers are the super positive, highly rosy version of a Wanderer. They will swoop into your community, pointing out all of the wonderful, delicious, awesome things that are going on, then swoop out just as fast. They have fun, crazy ideas that will lighten up any community.
You can’t ‘count’ on Dreamers, but when they are around, everyone has fun. Dreamers will make everyone feel good, even if it’s only temporary. The key to keeping Dreamers around is to keep the fun dial on high and have a mass of other Dreamers around.
Non-Community Member Archetypes:
Hecklers
Spammers
Vandals
Self-Promoters
Hi-Jackers
Bozos
Drive-Bys
——
Feedback is necessary and will be very helpful.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 am
Based on my numerous attempts at Myers-Briggs over the years, I fall either as ENTJ or INTJ, normally on the border. So I’m a Planning Hot dogger, switching between detailed plans and wanting to get things done in an order and then shifting to completely winging it to just get things done
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I’m sure this is useful for developing strategies for managing communities, but I would caution you against developing the characterizations in too much detail. I see this and think “but I’m a unique snowflake!” : ) You want to model behavior, not pigeonhole people. My behavior changes dramatically based not only on my personality and level of involvement, but also on where the “gaps” are in the community. For example, I’m perfectly happy being a worker bee until there’s an obvious lack of leadership and then I turn into a (benevolent, I hope!) dictator.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Ok, I’ll play. I read the link through the ENTP (Hot Doggers) and the ENFP (Creators). Your description of the Creator seems more like me, but the description of ENTP is actually more true to form. So, there’s a bit of a difference, as you noted, between what you’ve written and what other tests say.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Something possibly worth thinking about: the rate of INTJs (planners) in the general population is said to be from 1-3%. But in the geek community, it’s more like 70-80%.
Dori (yeah, I’m an INTJ–not a shocker, huh?)
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I’d play on the side of caution and not pigeonhole people as Alicia said, especially since (if I recall correctly) the Myers-Briggs personality types are scale-based. While there is a single type that gets identified for an individual during testing, they often fall between types and are simply grouped into one over the other by what could be just a few points in either direction.
In my case, I’ll grudgingly admit that I am more of a Spectator (INFJ) in most cases, but that my Creator (ENFJ) side comes out when inspired/motivated. Counter to your assertion that Spectators don’t have a need to be heard, I’d argue that Spectators have a need to be heard only when they feel very strongly about an issue. No, they aren’t seeking to be heard for their own sake, but for the sake of the issue at hand. This translates into infrequent, but very passionate interactions — it’s what happens when you’re an idealist. Spectators make excellent community evangelists.
As always, (speaking as a Spectator) great thoughts and ideas Tara.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Whoops! Correction … Caretaker (ENFJ) not Creator (ENFP) for my response.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Another INTJ, I didn’t realize the percentage was higher in the geek community, although it seems from this anecdotal evidence it is! Is it too perfectionist-like of me to ask for references? Not that I don’t believe you, I just want to read about it.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
i have to agree with alicia, tare; these are stereotypes, not archetypes. the only modeling happening is perfecting the stereotypes.
which is fine. you need to do that in order to model archetypes on behavioral patterns that are found in the *overlap* between stereotypes. and the only way to do that is to interview individuals, recruited based on the criteria found in these stereotypes
some thoughts here and here on archetypes.
sorry for being so picky, or if it’s not the type of feedback you’re looking for..
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Well, once again my Gemini nature shows through…
Hotdogger, Gamer, some Wanderer, a bit of Planner, some Leader and, on some days, a Critic.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:32 am
Nice list! Would this list also apply to wiki’s for instance? I think most of them do. In wiki’s you would also have ‘pruners’/'cleaners’. Is there such a role in communities or a comparable role?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 am
how about a messenger archetype? although i would argue for that, wouldn’t i.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:23 am
“Typo” under Planners: “seem to flaky”. Yup, I guess I’m a Critic. (And Planner, it seems.) As Todd rightly points out the Myers-Briggs methodology is really scale-based in each of the four categories so these profile mappings should definitely be taken with a grain of salt
Personally I think profiling leads to pigeon-holing (as Alicia notes), but identifying traits individually is beneficial, just not necessarily lumping them together in only x number of configurations. And we do alter our personality traits in different scenarios or around different people, which I suspect is rather harder to profile.
Nice list of the personality building blocks of a community though, I particularly like the recognition of interactions amongst the roles (notably spectators and gamers).
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:06 am
Nice. I’ve been a fan of Jung and the Meyer Brigg’s tests for years. I’m an ENFJ myself as well. I usually use this when I’m in new situations and don’t know quite what to do. It helps me focus on what I’m good at.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 am
Although everyone feels they are a unique snowflake…and OF COURSE you are…these archetypes aren’t meant to say, “Alicia, this is all that you are.” They are to point out the types of behaviours one needs to encourage and foster, depending on the culture you are trying to create in your community.
World of Warcraft actually deals with archetypes very well. It takes the Gamers and Dreamers and Critics and gives them a space of high competition, then takes the Caretakers, Organizers and Planners and gives them a space of deep collaboration. It’s pretty cool.
Of course these general ideas are never enough to fully encompass the depth of a human personality…far from it! But at some point, I have to write a book that people can grasp (without dumbing it down). I’m trying to find that balance.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 am
LOL…not a shocker at all! I can totally see that.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Hi Todd,
This isn’t about pigeonholing people, it’s about pointing out that we need all sorts of personalities in our communities to make it work. I’ll also be exploring how those personalities clash, when they are most active and when they don’t fit in…a fact of communities.
As I said to Alicia above, various community managers have figured this out. They know when to release and when to reel in the promoter. They understand how to take care of the caretakers. And they also know that Gamer cultures often clash with Caretaker cultures…there are different incentives for different personalities.
Good point about Spectators. I agree.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 am
I’ll be pointing out references and stories as I write this book. Lots of personal anecdotes as well as scientific studies on the archetypes.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 am
Stereotype: “a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group: ‘The cowboy and Indian are American stereotypes.’”
Archetype: “(in Jungian psychology) a collectively inherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought, image, etc., universally present in individual psyches.”
As many have pointed out here…we float between these. I, personally, float between being a Caretaker and a Creator – I’m dangerously close on the Judging/Perceiving line and, depending on the community (as Alicia points out), I switch.
These are behavioural patterns I’m looking at…although I matched them with Meyers-Briggs to help people figure out where they lie on the scale (if they want…some people like these tests…). And, as Todd mentions above Meyers-Briggs is all about grey scale…it’s percentages. And people shift over time.
When I think of a stereotype, I think of it as something that one can’t escape…something that is used to measure you before you prove yourself otherwise. For instance, Chris and I walk into a geek event and, instantly, he is stereotyped as a developer and I am stereotyped as the girlfriend accompanying him…because of our genders and the way we dress most likely.
With the Community Archetypes, I’m trying to create an insight into how people come together to accomplish things. If there are too many Caretakers already, I’ll switch into a Creator. If I feel that I’m out of my league there, I’ll take up the Worker role, etc.
Understanding patterns is like creating web standards: we have to encompass an 80% behavioural model, where there will always be edge cases.
And as someone proceeds down a path of being a great community manager/advocate, s/he will learn that there are subtleties for everyone. But I’m creating an accessible book for people who need to have a glimpse into this wonderful world on a level that fosters respect for it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
LOL. I wonder how all of the archetypes would map to the signs…
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
Absolutely! I would say the Organizer would be akin to pruner/cleaner. But maybe there is a bit of the Critic in there?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
Tell me more about the Messenger. How does s/he compare with the Promoter or the Spectator?
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
Ok, Tara, once again you’ve mentioned Warcraft… come on, signup. You know you want to… it’s not addictive… no, not at all.
And you have plenty of free time, right?
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
i hear you, but switching between one stereotype and another doesn’t necessarily help define one or many archetypes (separated by explicit differences in behavior) useful for designing around.
in the switching of hats, desires, focus, etc. a bunch of behaviors become apparent. all these add up to help define not only archetypes, but scenarios in context to the archetype.
but since you’re not designing explicit interfaces and interaction models to support needs to match “archetypal” people, it doesn’t matter as much. if you were designing a service or online community from these “groupings” (nicer than stereotype, i suppose), you’d potentially miss a bunch of either interesting or pertinent features that differentiate your experience from another.
in a saturated market, differentiation distinguishes itself from an edge case.
but hey, that’s what forever beta mode is for, right? iterate away!!! (taking flight with cape)
August 24th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Tara, I’ll get on WOW if you will! Wanna try it?
interesting post. much to chew on.
j.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Ok, you 2… If you DO wanna try it and would like someone to show you around a bit, drop me an email. I assume my email is accessible somehow since I leave it on these comments, but if not….
rickgregory (at) gmail (dot) com
August 24th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I would need the assistance in finding my way around, that’s for sure. I’m still only flying in second life. Thanks for the offer Rick! Let me know if it’s a go. jeneane.sessum AT gmail.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:03 am
It might be fun to ask a group like the San Francisco Online Community Report to take the test and see how their scores compare with your descriptions, http://ocr.meetup.com/135/. I’m an INFJ.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Thanks for the link, Britt! I’ll have to check out the next meeting!
August 25th, 2007 at 7:58 am
I’d love to try it. I think my son would actually start respecting me again.
Only problem is that I already don’t have enough time in the day to get everything done. Maybe I’ll call it research.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:59 am
I haven’t even gotten as far as flying in SL! But I’m up for a lesson: horsepigcow at gmail
August 26th, 2007 at 3:02 am
I always laugh when anyone calls me Creative, because I feel I’m in perma-writers-block and I don’t have an artist’s tortured soul. But the test confirms that I’m apparently a Creative in ENFP, with very strong N and F.
Extravert at 11% probably depends on the day, sometimes I prefer to blend in and watch, making me a Dreamer. The P’s also weak, at 11%, occasionally swinging to make me a Caretaker. Considering the simplicity of the test, it feels quite accurate.
This post just reminded me of how fascinating it is to watch the dynamics between team members, the influencers vs the easily-swayed, the clued-up but flexible vs the not-so-clued-up but very stubborn ones.
I love working with anyone, as long as they’re motivated, or willing to be motivated by those around them. Some people just need to be riled up or sparked up a little to see why a project is so worthwhile, but once they’re on board, they’ll be giving it everything they’ve got. Those people aren’t so bad.
Flatlining neutral are worse than genuinely negative people, I think. Neutrals drain your energy because they won’t be proactive, no matter what you get them to do. They’re the ones who pay no attention in team meetings but are expected to be assigned tasks like everyone else, yet they’ll do none of it, or do it half-heartedly.
Thankfully, nowadays I’m surrounded by positive, creative, organised people and it feels great
August 26th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Perhaps instead of projecting the archetypes onto users it might be useful thinking of it the other way around and projecting them onto the community. That is, thinking of them as aspects of the community (I was going to say views but that’s still user-centric). That way you might find it easier to escape the knee-jerk reaction most people have to any suggestion of stereotyping.
For the record, I just tested out at INTJ. As you noted, this can change over time and to be honest I’m a bit flabbergasted when I reflect on how much my personality has changed over the past decade. I’ve also become more aware of how I have different personalities in different circumstances. My sports personality has been alot more extroverted (though I can even date this from when I was about 15).
August 28th, 2007 at 3:00 am
I was wondering if there is any sort matching propensity between the archetypes? Do you know if there are any studies that demonstrates that archetypes x and y, get along better with archetypes w and z?
With all the social networking buzz going on, I was wondering if they could use these archetypes as clusters and then make recommendations (eg: friends, groups, …) based on the these. With the amount of info the social networking sites gather they should have enough to build a “proxy Jung typology test”, don’t you think?
August 28th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Thanks for this post, Tara. Super interesting. I look forward to more.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Damn. I thought I was a Creator until I found myself pulling out my imaginary blue pencil to circle “type-o’s.” (It’s “typos,” short for *typographical errors.* And no apostrophe to form the plural, please.)
Since you’re interested in personality categories, I recommend that you check out the Enneagram. Ignore the quasi-mystical hoo-ha and consider the nine “types” as useful constructs for evaluating yourself and others. Screenwriters use the Enneagram to develop their characters. I’m told the CIA uses it, too!
August 28th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I could basically copy Rachel Clarke’s post word for word!
I typically come out as an INTJ, but with very low percentages for the “I” and especially the “J” (usually 1% Judging). While some of the stereotypes definitely describe me and how I work (“Does it work?” and “Anything is possible; everything is negotiable.”), I think that my low marks under Introverted and Judging help bring out the ENTP Hot Dogger in me.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:30 am
What a great article! We use the D.I.S.C system, which seems to use a lot of similar principles. Blog on understanding the model of human behavior.
oh & I am a caretaker according to the test.