The study of counterproductive work behavior (CWB), intentional actions by employees that are deleterious to the organization and/or its stakeholders, has produced research on the dimensionality of CWB, as well as its situational and dispositional antecedents. Absent from these advancements have been investigations into the potential utility of a taxonomy of counterproductive employee types—a “person-oriented” approach. Our latent profile analysis (N= 522) suggested a four-profile solution which included one profile with uniformly low rates across CWBs (here termed “Angels;” 14% of the sample), and three profiles with higher CWB rates but which were distinguishable by different CWBs being most frequent in each group. Specifically, one profile was distinguished from the Angels group by higher rates of less severe CWBs (misuse of time/resources and poor attendance; 33% of the sample). The other two of the three counterproductive profiles were similar to each other except that one was characterized by higher drug use than the other (14% of the sample). The profiles also differed significantly on narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, and on self-reports of prior arrest and censure by employers. Provided these distinctions among profiles, the treatment and assumptions of employee counterproductivity in research and practice should be revisited, particularly when using models assuming a homogenous, monotonic relationship between counterproductive behaviors across employees. Implications for our conceptual understanding of counterproductivity and applied interventions aimed at reducing CWBs are discussed, alongside recommendations for future person-oriented research on CWB.