Don’t Be Simplistic
By Mario Sikora
Having studied the Enneagram for 30 years, and used it in organizations for over 25, I have learned to be cautious about any generalization I make about any of the Enneagram types. My guiding principle here is: “Everybody does everything sometimes; nobody does anything all the time.”
In other words, everyone is, at times, happy and optimistic—not just Sevens—and Sevens are not happy or optimistic all the time. Everyone is easy-going and conflict-avoidant some of the time—not only Nines—and Nines are aggressive or combative some of the time. The same kind of statements can be made about all the types. Humans are complex and multifaceted and the nuances of the Ennea-types’ behavior are far more complicated than the popular literature would suggest.
Likewise, there is no way to predict a person’s success based on their Enneagram type. Not all Threes will be successful salespeople, not all Ones will be successful in finance roles, and not all Fives are natural IT professionals. Yet, one wouldn’t know this by most of what one hears self-professed Enneagram gurus claiming on social media.
While, as I wrote in my previous tip, while simple is good, simplistic is not good. And the easiest way to be simplistic is to rely on unvetted stereotypes about the Enneagram types. The reality is that people are very complicated and people of the same Enneagram type can be very different for a variety of reasons.
The first and most significant reason is that the three subtypes of a particular type can be very different. A Preserving Three is not nearly as image-conscious as the other two subtypes can be, and a Navigating Three is not as task-oriented; a Navigating One is not typically not as rigid as the Preserving and Transmitting Ones often are.
But this is not the only reason for great variation within type: culture, education, vocational training, gender, family of origin, and countless other variables shape who we are. In fact, there are so many variables that go into shaping who we are that it is a miracle we can find enough common ground to function sometimes. The wonder and beauty of the Enneagram is that it does identify commonalities as well as variation, and it is from this starting point of understanding that we can build healthier and more collaborative relationships.
Unfortunately, the commonalities within Enneagram type are not always as common as some would have us believe.
The Enneagram experience of many of the people posting online about the system (and how to use it in organizations) comes from learning a set of stereotypes from reading a book, attending a workshop, or watching some YouTube videos; thinking they understand the system; and then see examples of people around them that confirm the stereotypes. However, confirmation bias not only helps us see things that fit our preconceptions, it also keeps us from seeing the exceptions to our assumptions. Thus, people using the Enneagram will often see Ones or Sixes who are excellent accountants but not see the Sevens who are just as skilled. They might see the Seven who is a gregarious sales professional, but not see the Seven who would rather die than try to sell their company’s products.
As I wrote last time, my guiding first principle for teaching the Enneagram types is to start with the idea that each of us uses one of nine adaptive strategies more frequently than we use the other eight. This strategy is rooted in a need to feel a certain way, which shapes the way we think, which influences our behaviors. However, the actual expression of those feelings, thoughts, and behaviors can be substantially different based on the countless variables I already mentioned.
So, we have another guiding principle: the Enneagram is not a predictive model; that is, it won’t tell us who will do what, when, or why. It is, to some extent, a probabilistic model. It is safe to say, for example, that Eights will more likely respond assertively than, say, Nines; but not always—it depends on a variety of circumstances.
Mostly, however, the Enneagram is an explanatory model. That is, once we see a problematic behavior in ourselves or someone else, we can trace it to some distorted application of the strategy or instinctual bias. We can then help them rewrite their (or our own) narratives related to the strategy or bias and identify new, more skillful behaviors and attitudes.
The dilemma we face is that when teaching the Enneagram, especially to a group, you have to be able to give examples of people of a given type and identify common behaviors we are likely to see. Simply teaching the nine strategies and saying “they can express in a lot of different ways” is not helpful.
However, we need to be cautious and caveat any claims we make. We should use qualifying words rather than make definitive statements—“Ones often… frequently… may…” etc. We should make sure that any claim we are making about a particular Enneagram type refers to all three subtypes, not just one or two, and if it doesn’t, we need to point out the variability.
Making broad and inaccurate or semi-accurate has a danger that many overlook. The Enneagram is such a powerful tool and provides so many accurate insights that people will not always notice claims that are not so accurate, at least for a while. Laughing about Enneagram stereotypes at a party or on social media may be fun and harmless, but if you are going to use it in the real world for people who are depending on it to make a useful change in their lives, more rigor is called for. Eventually, in such environments, the overly broad claims begin to ring hollow and the stereotypes lead to confusion, and what once seemed like a revelation starts to lose its power. The Enneagram ends up becoming just another fun-but-not-very-useful teambuilding activity that was a nice diversion but is now forgotten.
Unfortunately, since many people who teach the Enneagram in organizations do one-off sessions (that is, teach a workshop to a group they never see again), they only see the initial excitement caused by their simplistic teaching but don’t get to see the questions and confusions that eventually arise.
If you are going to teach the Enneagram in organizations, you owe it to yourself, your clients, and the Enneagram to rigorously pressure test your ideas and make them simple, but not simplistic.
