It’s no secret that I am not a fan of archetypes and that I am not convinced of their utility in business. In my original post on this subject – “Archetypes Don't Matter!” – I said:

“Patrick [Lambe] has one set of archetypes and Katie Altham has some 100 archetypes which are quite different. Her archetypes use names from mythology, like Apollo, Zeus, Dionysus, Hermes and Aphrodite. Now this is all well and good as an attention grabbing exercise and even as a bit of fun, but does it have a grounded evidence base? Both Patrick and Katie claim it does however before I am convinced I would like to see the underlying data. It all seems too simplistic to me. Further it appears to me to be at best an extension and simplification of Carl Jung’s work, and at worst little better than pop psychology or even horoscopy”.

My position hasn’t changed, particularly when I discover on the actKM Knowledge-Base these two gems – “Star Types ” by Professor Han van Loon, and “'I' is for Insect ” by Arthur Shelley. Now it seems we can have insects, bumble bees and lions if we don’t like Greek gods. If Greek gods, animals, or Patrick Lambe’s habits like lust and avarice don’t appeal, then we can substitute blue stars, orange stars, red giants, and even brown dwarfs! But wait, there’s more.

A cursory poke around the World Wide Web with the key word archetype provides 3,140,000 hits. If none of the above archetypes satisfy us we can Dumbledore, Harry Potter, and Snape; or Sleeping Beauty and the Wicked Fairy; or even Darth Vader, Chewbacca and Yoda! Now we are getting somewhere. I can just see my clients reaching into their very deep pockets to part with a few thousand dollars so the consultancy I recommend, which won't be HolisTech® Pty Ltd , can categorise everyone in the organisation, and seek to change negative behaviours (archetypes?) into positive ones!

What am I missing? I don’t want to be absolutist in my position, and I’m trying to have an open mind, but I just don’t get it! 30 plus years ago in my undergraduate degree I remember studying the works of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. I remember Freud’s “Totem and Taboo” and Jung’s “The Psychology of Individuation” as being interesting, and even influential in some circles. Today of course both publications are of little more than historical interest. Why do these moderen archetypes have credibility and how do they help us? Why are they any better than Jung’s original archetypes? Where are they best used and what problems do they solve? Until these questions, and some others, are answered I remain unconvinced of their utility. For me archetypes still do not matter!

Regards Graham