Most companies claim they want “disruptors.” But when a real disruptor arrives and ignores a 40-page procurement process to build a working solution in a weekend, the organization often reacts like a human body rejecting a transplanted organ.
But in reality, companies should stop seeing these characters as difficult people and start seeing them as part of their most vital assets. Research into psychology reveals that this visionary drive manifests in two distinct archetypes: The Architects (and this is not the software architect or EA) and The Catalysts.
Both are essential, but they operate on different internal clocks and with different relationships to the system.
The Internal Architect: The Person Who Knows Where the are Secrets are Burried
These individuals are the anchors of long-term evolution. According to research on Intrapreneurial Self-Efficacy, they do not just see the future; they identify the blueprints required to get there without collapsing the present. They are deeply committed to the organization’s long-term survival. They do not ignore rules out of rebellion; they strategically bypass them because they perceive red tape as a threat to the company’s ultimate goal.
These are often Tempered Radicals who work the system to change the system. They are the ones who know exactly which middle manager needs to be “handled” with a specific type of coffee to get a project approved.
The External Catalyst: The Person Who Treats the Rulebook Like a Suggestion
The Catalyst, often a full-time employee rather than an outside consultant, possesses the same clarity but lacks the “corporate glue.” They thrive exclusively in the high-stakes 0-to-1 phase, or in the pivot or crises phase of a project.
These individuals often align with the Protean Career model, driven by personal values and the need for challenge rather than organizational tenure. They enter, can easily disrupt the status quo, and exit once the “new” becomes the “routine.” This is a form of Creative Deviance. Research shows that when employees bypass orders to work on a new idea, it often leads to a company’s most significant breakthroughs. They treat the company handbook as a collection of “vibe-based suggestions” rather than laws.
Two Timelines: Strategic Roadmaps vs. “Hold My Cup”
The Internal Architect focuses on realizing the company’s vision. Their endgame is leading the future state they built. Conversely, the External Catalyst is driven by the act of proving the impossible.
While the Architect is planning the five-year roadmap, the Catalyst has already found three ways to automate the Architect’s roadmap and is getting bored. By this time, you most likely found someone from your collegues, former or current ones, who is spot on to the description 😉
Why Both Are Non-Negotiable
Research into Ambidextrous (yes, that word again ;-)) Organizations shows that companies must balance exploitation (running the current business) and exploration (finding the next one). The Catalyst is needed to break the gravity of the past. They create a “burning platform” by proving that the future is attainable. The Architect is then needed to build the bridge. They take the spark and integrate it into the company’s DNA, ensuring the change survives long after the Catalyst has moved on to the next mission.
And the Strategic Benefits?
Knowingly recruiting for these two profiles provides a dual advantage:
- For the Company: It eliminates the success trap where a business only refines what already works until it becomes obsolete. It ensures internal disruption is balanced by structural stability.
- For the Employees: It fosters a culture of high psychological safety. When a company validates these archetypes, visionaries spend their energy on innovation rather than on hiding their unconventional methods from HR.
Architects are groomed for high-level leadership, while Catalysts are used for high-impact missions that align with their need for radical autonomy.
Do You Dare to Build a Plane While Skydiving?
In a specialized innovation journey, this distinction is vital. It attracts those who see the future so clearly that they can go against the process to advance things.
It is the difference between someone who wants to redesign the engine while the car is moving and someone who wants to invent teleportation because they are tired of the traffic. Both are required to actually get the organization where it needs to go.
If HR Isn’t Worried, You Aren’t Moving Fast Enough
To think differently, an organization must accept a talent pool that is somewhat “difficult.” You need the people who stay and fight the system from within to rebuild it, and you need the people who come in, demonstrate the future by ignoring the present, and leave once the point is proven.
Managing innovation is about orchestrating the hand-off. If your office doesn’t have at least one person who makes the legal department and HR sweat a bit, you probably aren’t innovating fast enough.
