If you’ve ever spent 10 minutes scrolling through a supplier directory, only to give up halfway because every “group” of people feels like a one-size-fits-afterthought, you get why I started this whole thing—grouping people by type isn’t about slapping a label on a resume and calling it a day. It’s not about forcing a software dev into a “tech person” box just because they code, or a HR manager into an “office admin” slot because they schedule meetings. As someone who’s built this work around being a By Type supplier, I’ve spent the last 7 years testing, tweaking, and reworking how we categorize people so it actually works—not just for us, but for the teams, projects, and missions that rely on getting the right fit fast. Let me break this down like I would over a coffee (no stuffy slide decks, promise). By Type
First, let’s get one thing straight: grouping people “by type” is not personality typing (that’s the Myers-Briggs worksheet you filled out in 2018 and forgot about) or rigid job titles. Those are fun, but useless when you’re hiring a contractor to finish a product launch in 6 weeks. Type here is about three things: what they actually do day-to-day, how they show up when work gets messy, and the specific strengths that make them stand out—not just their LinkedIn headline. I see too many companies mess this up: they’ll list “Marketing Specialist” and move on, but that title could cover a social media influencer who hates writing long-form, a copywriter who can’t make Reels save their life, or a data nerd who crushes email campaigns but freezes up in strategy meetings. Grouping by type means cutting through that noise.
Let’s use a real example that comes up in my inbox every other day: a startup that needs someone to lead their customer onboarding. Last month, they tried a generic “customer service rep” and it flopped—turns out that rep was great at fixing tickets but terrible at walking new users through a confusing product step-by-step. What they actually needed wasn’t just “anyone who works with customers”; they needed an onboarding type. That’s a specific category we developed over years of talking to 1,200+ people in that space: people who don’t just solve problems, they map out journeys, write clear checklists, and even add little touches (like a personalized welcome video) that make users actually stick around. We didn’t just toss them into a “customer” bucket—we broke that bucket down into onboarding specialists, ticket fixers, churn fighters, and community builders. That’s grouping by type: it’s granular, it’s actionable, and it’s based on actual work, not buzzwords.
So how do we actually do this? I’ll walk you through the 4-step process we use at our team, the stuff we test every quarter to make sure it doesn’t get outdated. No jargon, just steps you can steal.
Step 1: Stop with the surface-level labels. If you’re grouping people by job title or industry, you’re already setting yourself up for failure. I once had a client ask for “a SaaS content writer” and we sent them someone who’d only written for e-commerce—turns out that writer had a secret: they specialize in explaining complicated software to non-technical people, which is exactly what the SaaS client needed. The client didn’t care if the writer’s last gig was selling socks; they cared that they could translate jargon into plain language. So first, when building your types, ask two questions: What outcomes does this person deliver? And what unique skills do they bring that aren’t in their title? For the onboarding example, the outcome was “reduce new user drop-off by 20% in 3 months” and the unique skill was “ability to design step-by-step, user-centric guides”—that’s the stuff that defines a type, not “customer-facing role.”
Step 2: Use data from actual work, not surveys. I know, surveys are easy—just send out a Google Form and call it a day. But I’ve seen surveys lie: a developer might check “I love collaborative work” but their GitHub commits show they never comment on pull requests. For our types, we pull data from actual work: project success metrics, client feedback reviews, work samples, even how people frame their own experiences (not just what we ask them). A few years ago, we noticed a subset of designers who kept showing up for projects that needed bold, fast turns for social media campaigns. They weren’t just “graphic designers”—they were “social creative designers.” We tracked their project completion times (2 days on average vs. the 7-day average for other designers), client feedback (92% said their work drove engagement), and their portfolio was full of Reels covers and carousel designs, not website mockups. That’s how we build a type: it’s data from their actual output, not a self-reported “I’m a social person” line.
Step 3: Group by how they adapt, not just what they do. This is the part most people miss. Jobs change all the time—last year, remote work blew up, so every role started requiring basic Zoom facilitation. A good type isn’t locked to one task; it’s about how they shift when the project changes. Let’s say you have a software developer who usually works on back-end code, but when their team lost their front-end dev last minute, they jumped in and delivered a functional user dashboard in 3 days. That developer isn’t just a “back-end dev”—they’re a flexible, cross-functional dev. We include adaptability in our types because projects never go as planned. If you’re grouping people only by their primary skill, you’ll be stuck when a last-minute need pops up. We tested this a few years ago: a client needed a project manager for a 6-month product launch. Initially, they wanted a “traditional PM” with 10 years of corporate experience. But our flexible cross-functional PM type had worked on 3 startups, had experience with both Agile and Waterfall, and had handled 2 unexpected pivots (like a product feature being delayed) in past projects. They delivered the launch 2 weeks early and 10% under budget. The client later said they never would’ve hired the corporate PM, but the type we matched them to was the right fit because it included adaptability as a key trait.
Step 4: Keep types dynamic, not static. This is non-negotiable. The world of work changes fast—AI tools, new industries, remote work norms. If you group people once and never update, you’re going to have gaps. For example, 5 years ago, there was no such thing as an “AI prompt engineer”; now, it’s one of our most in-demand types. We update our types every 6 months by talking to our network, checking in on what projects are failing because of a wrong fit, and looking at new skills that are becoming essential. Last year, we noticed a lot of clients were asking for people who could blend UX design with AI tool integration—so we created the “AI UX Designer” type. We didn’t just make it up; we talked to 20 designers who were already doing that work, asked them what skills they used, what outcomes they delivered, and turned that into a clear, actionable type. No guessing, no forcing people into old boxes.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “This sounds great, but how do I know if I’m grouping people right?” Let’s talk about the red flags. If your type labels sound like job descriptions (“Marketing Manager 1: Digital, Marketing Manager 2: Print”), that’s a bad sign. Good types tell you exactly what that person can do for you without reading their whole resume. Another red flag: if you have a type that’s too broad, like “Creative Person.” If you need a creative person to build a logo and you send someone who writes ad copy, that’s a waste. We keep our types specific, with clear use cases: for example, our “brand identity designer” type is defined by “delivers cohesive logos, color palettes, and brand guides for new startups,” while our “ad copywriter” type is “writes high-converting copy for social media and Google Ads.” No overlap, no confusion.
Here’s the thing about being a By Type supplier: this isn’t just how we do business—it’s how we solve the actual problem that so many teams face: wasting time and money on hires or contractors that don’t fit. I’ve seen clients go from taking 8 weeks to find the right person to taking 5 days, because they don’t have to sift through 50 resumes labeled “Marketing Specialist” anymore. They go straight to the “onboarding specialist” type that matches their needs, and that’s it. I’ve had people message me saying, “I tried hiring a freelancer through your type last month, and they turned our project around faster than anyone we’ve worked with before.” That’s the win here—this isn’t about us, it’s about making work better for everyone involved.
If you’re tired of the generic supplier model where every “category” feels the same, or if you’ve been struggling to find the right person for a project that feels off because of a bad fit, I’d love to chat. We don’t do one-size-fits-all anything, and we don’t just send you a list of names—we walk through what you need, help you pick the right type, and connect you with someone who’s actually going to get the job done. No pressure, no sales pitch, just a conversation about making work easier.
By Occasion References:
- Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine. (2024). Job zone and skill grouping framework. U.S. Department of Labor.
- Capterra. (2023). Global contractor hiring trends report: granular skill matching for project success. Software Advice.
- Harvard Business Review. (2022). Moving beyond job titles: How to categorize talent for flexible work arrangements.
Address: No.85-11 Kunshan West Road, Huanggu District, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China.
E-mail: jane@ziyuaqua.com
WebSite: https://www.ziyuaqua.com/
