The Notes and the Melody, Part I
A Simple and Pragmatic Approach to the Enneagram
By Mario Sikora
This article originally appeared in the March 2006 issue of "The Enneagram Monthly."
Pragmatism: 1: a practical approach to problems and affairs; 2: an American movement in
philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that
the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of
thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical
consequences of belief.—Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
As readers of “The Enneagram Monthly” may know, Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, “Bait and
Switch,” describes the author’s meeting with a “career coach” referred to as “Morton” and
his nine dolls representing the Enneagram types. She goes on to harshly criticize Morton
(rightly, I believe, if her depiction of their meeting was accurate) and say some negative
things about the Enneagram in general.
Ginger Bogda’s fine series of articles addressed the ethical uses of the Enneagram in
business (which appeared in recent issues of EM). I would like to address another question
raised by Ehrenreich’s book: What should a model of the Enneagram look like in order to
be appropriate to the business world, specifically, and to others outside of the traditional
psycho-spiritual audiences that have already embraced the system?
Let me state my bias at the outset: I make my living teaching the Enneagram to people in
business. When the opportunity arises I present to non-business audiences as well. While
the needs of my business audience have shaped the model of the Enneagram I present, I
consider it a model for pragmatists—people who are seeking growth but uninterested in
the mystical, psycho-spiritual elements so often associated with the Enneagram.
The blessing and the curse of the Enneagram of Personality is that, unlike other
typologies, nobody owns it and there is no “official” body of knowledge. Instead, there are
a number of Enneagram models (such as Riso/Hudson’s, Helen Palmer’s, and
Hurley/Donson’s) that have risen to the top and become dominant. People wanting to
teach the Enneagram to other’s have either had to receive education in an existing model
and then license the creator’s intellectual property or create their own independent models.
This article addresses four fundamental principles that underlie my approach and should
be considered by anyone constructing a model of the Enneagram to present to business.
Future articles will cover the model itself (see box on page at the end of this page).
Please note that this is not an effort to pass judgment on other models of the Enneagram;
it is an examination of appropriateness for specific audiences. Many of the existing models,
such as those mentioned above, have much to offer and I have learned from each of them.
However, if the Enneagram is ever going to be taken seriously as a tool for business use
or even become more widely accepted as a self-help tool, practitioners and teachers must
become more conscious of the needs of those audiences and the language with which
they are comfortable.
Principle One: Less is More and Simple is better than Complicated.
Corollary: Give them the notes; let them play their own melody.
I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the
simplicity on the other side of complexity.—attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes
One of the attractive things about the Enneagram of Personality, at least to some
audiences, is its richness and complexity. Various authors explore a multitude of
approaches to the model comprising a vast array of topics: type, subtype, wings, levels,
vices, virtues, essential aspects, directions of movement, various groupings of the types;
the list goes on and on. One could spend a lifetime studying the details and various
characteristics of the types.
One of the unattractive things about the Enneagram of Personality, at least to some
audiences, is its richness and complexity. Type, subtype, wings, levels, vices, virtues… It’s
enough to make your head hurt.
There are few people who would not benefit from the increased self-awareness that can be
achieved through exploring the Enneagram of Personality; at the same time, most people
have neither the time nor the inclination to be the dedicated “seekers” that are often found
in Enneagram circles.
This dilemma is at the heart of one of the challenges I’ve faced in my work as a consultant.
There is no better tool than the Enneagram for achieving one of the things I need my
clients to achieve—deep and useful self-awareness—but it must be achieved relatively
quickly and be easily remembered by people who have tremendous demands on their time
and attention. Too much detail causes their eyes to glaze over; they want something that
has the biggest payoff in the shortest amount of time.
Of course, it is not possible to solve complex personal or interpersonal challenges in a
short time. Insight grows over time and deeper insights yield greater benefits. Someone
presenting the Enneagram can, however, construct their model in a way that provides
precise, easily remembered insights that can be applied in a variety of ways.
The Pareto Principle is useful here: 20% of the investment (whether it be time, energy or
money) usually provides 80% of the dividend (when it is the “right” 20%); the other 80% of
the investment provides the other 20% of the dividend. Thus, it is important to remember
this fundamental principle of leverage when constructing a model of the Enneagram: focus
on the information that provides the biggest payoff in the shortest time and leave the rest
for another day.
As you will see in the articles of that follow, my Enneagram model is pretty simple, primarily
focusing on the interplay of the Nine strategies that Robert Tallon and I discuss in our
book, “From Awareness to Action.” When a client can remember that they get into trouble
when they overdo their preferred strategy and under-do their neglected strategy, they can
gain a lot of benefit. When they can remember the preferred strategy of a coworker and
infer the significance of that preferred strategy (“Harry is an Eight and Eights strive to be
powerful, therefore I should remember that…”), the client can reap huge dividends from a
small investment.
An Enneagram model that is too complex or too detailed, or a presentation that provides
too much information and seeks to address every situation that a client might face, will end
up being far less effective than a model that presents fundamental principles and examples
of how to apply them.
I’ve long been impressed with my clients’ abilities to take the Enneagram information they
receive from me and apply it in clever and creative ways. Therefore, my goal is to enable
them to extrapolate in their own style. A great analogy (thanks to my friend Teri Meehan for
this) is “the notes and the melody.” Teach them the notes, and give them examples of how
they might create a melody, then get out of their way and let them compose for themselves.
A user of the Enneagram must also understand its strengths and its limits. It is not a model
that explains the whole of the human condition. It does not effectively or precisely track to
other models of the psyche such as Myers-Briggs; object relations or attachment theory;
Freud’s model of the ego, id, and superego; or the work of Karen Horney. It can be used
as a complement to any of these models, but they all measure different things. Attempts to
directly correlate them ultimately seem forced or contrived, ultimately making the model
more complicated than it needs to be.
A pragmatic model of the Enneagram must make its way to the simplicity on the other side
of complexity.
Principle Two: A “secular” and scientific Enneagram is needed for the business
world.
“However splendid our languages and cultures, however rich and subtle our minds,
however vast our creative powers, the mental process is the product of a brain shaped by
the hammer of natural selection upon the anvil of nature.” –E.O. Wilson “On Human Nature”
Note: In our climate of culture war, the word “secular” is highly charged for many people. I
am not making any judgment on the value or utility of religion or spirituality in this article. I
am merely addressing the language and content that should be used for a specific
audience.
Since many people who are drawn to the Enneagram have a spiritual or psychological
bent, the models of the Enneagram that often get taken into the business world are framed
in language that is either blatantly or subtly tinged with spiritual or psychological overtones.
This is often a problem. While many individuals in corporations may be interested in
spirituality or psychology, corporate people are resistant to such talk at a macro level. Put
another way, you can often talk about spirituality and psychology with a client one-on-one,
but they start to cringe when you try to do it in a group.
Further, individually or collectively, people outside of the classic Enneagram audience tend
to be more challenging and expect greater precision. Soft and fuzzy language, words like
“Being,” “Essence,” “Presence,” etc., are too nebulous to be useful in that environment.
Likewise, language pertaining to virtues and vices, “the spiritual dimension,” ancient
wisdom, etc., evoke images of religion and mysticism that are unappealing to the pragmatic
audience. In addition, the myth that the Enneagram of Personality is in some way “ancient
wisdom” further undermines its credibility to a pragmatic audience by being unproven. I
have yet to see any evidence of links to the Enneagram as process model that pre-date
Gurdjieff. Nor have I seen any evidence of the Enneagram as a model of personality that
pre-dates Oscar Ichazo’s work or the more fully developed work of Claudio Naranjo. The
1960’s hardly qualify as “ancient.”
Speaking of Naranjo: If my house was on fire and I could only grab one Enneagram book
(including my own), it would be Naranjo’s “Character and Neursosis.” Unfortunately, his
focus on neurosis and his technical language, which are understandable for a psychiatrist
and appropriate for his target audience, make his book unusable for a pragmatic
audience. Even the work of Riso and Hudson, with the construct of “Levels of
Development” and focus on “healthy, average, and unhealthy” behavior, will send most
human resource people scurrying for cover. When I began using the Enneagram in
business, I gave my clients Riso and Hudson’s “Personality Types” to read. Before long,
people were labeling each other in terms of health. Usually, the person talking was
emphasizing his or her own “healthiness” and pointing out someone else’s “unhealthiness.”
In addition to the ethical problem with labeling others as “unhealthy,” there are significant
legal considerations regarding this language in the workplace.
In addition to secularization, a pragmatic approach to the Enneagram will benefit from
relying on the latest science rather than “ancient wisdom.” Recently, someone writing in the
pages of EM suggested that anyone teaching the Enneagram should immerse themselves
in Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, the Desert Fathers, etc. I would counter that if you really want to
understand how the mind works, immerse yourself in Charles Darwin to give you the right
context, then dive into E. O. Wilson’s socio-biology classic “On Human Nature” and Richard
Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene” before moving on to Matt Ridley, Joseph LeDoux, Antonio
Damasio, Paul Bloom, Steven Pinker, Timothy Wilson, and some other the other brilliant
and accessible authors writing about genetics and neuroscience. I love reading Gurdjieff
and the Sufis as much as the next person, but—and I apologize in advance—they are the
theoretical equivalent of the Commodore 64: an interesting part of the history of the study
of the mind, but the technology has moved on.
Pragmatic audiences, especially business audiences, expect the latest technology. In the
study of the mind, the latest technology is not found in the desert; it is found in the
laboratory.
Validation of both type assessments and the fundamental suppositions of the Enneagram
(i.e., agreed-upon definitions of commonly shared characteristics of the Ennea-types) are
also critical to the further acceptance of the Enneagram by pragmatic audiences. Despite
Ehrenreich’s comments in “Bait and Switch,” Jerry Wagner’s WEPPS assessment has very
strong validation and reliability support and I have found it to be the most accurate and
corporate-friendly of the popular Enneagram-type assessments. Riso and Hudson have
done important work in beginning to validate the “realness” of the types. More needs to be
done, however.
By a “scientific approach” I also mean that one’s model of the Enneagram must hold up to
the scientific method: hypothesize, test, observe, and conclude. What you teach must be
internally consistent and rigorously tested for accuracy.
Unfortunately, typical Enneagram workshop audiences are “soft” audiences—they have
been dazzled by certain insights and want to agree with the person conducting the
presentation. They may also see the system as all-inclusive: if one part of it is right, the
rest must be right as well. Or they may fall into a pattern of only seeing confirming
evidence, ignoring assertions that are not consistent with their experience or observations
either unconsciously or out of simple politeness.
Therefore, some of the ideas that make it into the Enneagram literature are not particularly
solid, and they go unquestioned by the teacher taking them into the business world.
Witness our friend “Morton,” for example, who told Ehrenreich that her type (which reads
like a Four), would not be a good writer. It is easy to dismiss this as a ridiculous misuse of
the system unsupported by data, but there are prominent Enneagram teachers who make
assertions such as “Fours always wear purple or black,” “Fives tend to bathe less than
other types,” and “Nines like self-help workshops and camping.” Only a soft audience
would allow these untested generalizations to go unchallenged.
Business audiences are not soft audiences, however. In fact, they tend to be challenging
and skeptical, and on average probably a lot smarter than the presenter. They sniff out
inaccuracy, inconsistency, and fuzziness and will either tune you out (if you are lucky) and
begin catching up on email on their Blackberries or they will turn on you like sharks that
sniff blood. If you can spend a day teaching the Enneagram to a group of 30 engineers or
lawyers and survive, your model is solid.
One way to ensure that your model is solid is to apply the scientific method to what you
learn and what you teach. Does an idea hold up in your experience? Does it hold up when
applied to a statistically useful, non-Enneagram indoctrinated sample? If so, use it; if not,
toss it.
The Dalai Lama, when asked what would happen if science proved to contradict some
basic tenets of Buddhism, replied “We would have to change Buddhism.” Enneagram
teachers must hold themselves to the same principles of logic, reason, and rigor. If the
evidence contradicts the theory, the theory must change.
One final comment in this area:
Models of the Enneagram that revolve around science fiction, cartoon, or fairy-tale
characters as exemplars are simply inappropriate for the business world. Shakespeare,
Homer, movies aimed at grown-ups, etc. are generally better, though the references will
probably be unfamiliar to the classic business audience.
A simple rule of thumb is: justly or not, if it would get you ostracized in high school it will get
you ostracized in the corporate world.
And, please, leave the dolls home.
Principle Three: Remaining Static is the problem; becoming Responsive is the
solution.
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one
most responsive to change.”—Charles Darwin
Here, we get to the “So, what?” query of the pragmatic audience. What is the value of this
to me? How can it help me in my daily life? Why should I spend my time listening to you
while work is piling up on my desk?
The case for the practical benefit of your Enneagram model must be made.
Darwin’s comment, or course, refers to biological adaptation through mechanisms that
generally take millennia to occur, but the concept applies at a micro level as well. As
individuals, we are successful when we adapt (respond) to the changing demands of our
environment; we are unsuccessful when we try to hold on to an unchanging set of
behaviors and attitudes that have outgrown their usefulness or are inappropriate for our
circumstances.
Let’s be sure to clarify what I mean by “successful” here—for the sake of this article I am
not necessarily talking about material success, market primacy, athletic conquest, etc.,
(though these are fine things). Rather, I mean the ability to flexibly respond to your
environment in a way that allows you to develop efficacy in your dealings with the world,
harmony in your relationships, and contentment in your heart. (Accomplish this and you will
have accomplished a lot.)
The Enneagram can serve as a map on how to move from resistance to responsiveness.
As I will explain in the next article, the inner triangle of the Enneagram can serve as a
metaphor for the process by which we become stuck in ineffective habitual patterns and
how we can become unstuck. The nine Ennea-types are the specific patterns we can
become stuck in. More specifically, the nine strategies are the themes that underlie the
patterns. Thus, the most important lesson for a One is that he tends to get into trouble
when he overdoes his preferred strategy of “striving to be perfect.” When he goes off track
he can look for the problematic behaviors or attitudes that stem from this strategy and then
modify them accordingly.
It’s not always that simple, of course, and I often explore other aspects of the mind
addressed by this model. The key idea, however, is to give the client simple, logically
connected concepts (the notes) that can be used in a variety of ways to creatively address
the everyday challenges they face (the melody).
Principle Four: Focus on growth rather than dysfunction.
Corollary: You can’t change who you are, but you can change who you will be.
“Think what you would be; then do what you must.”—Epictetus
The language of “the Fall” permeates the Enneagram literature, as it does most of western
tradition. The common view holds that we are dysfunctional versions of what we should be
rather than “in-progress” versions of what we could be.
Theories of human flaw—the Christian tradition of original sin, the Freudian “id” needing to
be reigned in, etc.—are deeply rooted in our psyches despite a modern focus on self-
actualization, positive psychology, and the like. We believe that we have gone to sleep and
must wake up (though we see ourselves as more awake than other people). We say that
we have forgotten our true selves and must remember our true nature or contact with our
Essence.
We feel like we should be somehow “better” than we are and then beat up on ourselves for
falling short. Consciously or not, we tend to see ourselves as disappointments and failures.
In short, we see ourselves as angels fallen.
Instead, we should see ourselves as primates evolved. Rather than see ourselves as
sinful, sleeping, or stupid, perhaps we should see ourselves as marvels of nature who are
sometimes ineffectively programmed.
The language of the Fall not only keeps us mired in feeling bad about ourselves, it is
simply inconsistent with what we now know of how the brain, and thus the mind, works. The
“you” that is reading this right now is the cumulative result of a set of genes actualized into
neurons and synapses shaped and reinforced in the crucible of experience.
“Consciousness” is the activity and interactions of those neurons and synapses. It should
be understood as a verb rather than a noun, as what our brain does rather than who we
are. This may seem bleak and overly materialistic to some, lacking the richness of spiritual
language (though I would disagree), but it is a view more conducive to growth and
development than the language of the Fall.
Let me explain:
Change is difficult and when we try to change we often fail—and we fail repeatedly in the
beginning. If we see our failed attempts as shortcomings, as signs of our deficiency, we
berate ourselves and then we stop trying. (No one likes a scold, even if it resides between
our own ears. The best way to make a scold stop berating us is to rob it of ammunition.
The best way to do that is to simply stop trying to change.)
The deficiency model tends to be, therefore, counterproductive to growth.
A more effective way to grow is to understand that our habitual patterns are a productive of
the initial and ongoing hardwiring of our brains. At the risk of oversimplification, we perform
a behavior because a stimulus activates a specific part of our brain. That part of the brain
sends a message through synaptic connections to another part of our brain, which
executes a response to the stimulus. (For example, a snake crosses my path; one part of
my brain registers the snake and sends a message to another part of my brain; I run.)
The more frequently we execute a specific response, the stronger the synaptic
connections become, making it more likely that we will execute that reaction again in the
future. The synapses literally become denser and more insulated, making the transfer of
information easier. Thus, behavior becomes habitual. The brain is taking the path of least
resistance to solve a problem.
Personal change and growth is an exercise in neuroplasticity. “Neuroplasticity” is the ability
of the wiring of the brain to change overtime. The repetitive practice of a new thought or
behavior strengthens the synapses connecting the part of the brain that receives a
stimulus and the part of the brain that issues a new response. This means that the new
behavior becomes “easier” over time. At the same time, the synaptic connections linked to
the “old” behavior start to atrophy due to decreased use. Eventually, the new behavior
becomes the default response.
Change has occurred.
It is not enough to realize that “You are not your personality” and begin embracing your
essence. There may be more to you than your personality, if you define personality as the
behavioral face you show to others. You are not, however, some mystical essence that
exists external to the sum of your biology and your experiences. You are who you are, but
by acknowledging the way the brain really works and exercising its potential for plasticity,
you can become who you want to be.
The language of “the Fall” may seem richer and somehow deeper than all this talk of
neurons and synapses, and I find that many people invested in a spiritual path sometimes
resist it as somehow lacking in majesty. But I disagree. If you want majesty, look at pictures
of magnified synapses and neurons and study how the most sophisticated three pounds of
matter in the universe really works.
As Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy.”
A model of the Enneagram aimed at pragmatists should abandon the language of the Fall,
let go of the past, and focus on systematic growth.
Future articles will focus on the components of a pragmatic model of the Enneagram.
A Simple and Pragmatic Approach to the Enneagram
By Mario Sikora
This article originally appeared in the March 2006 issue of "The Enneagram Monthly."
Pragmatism: 1: a practical approach to problems and affairs; 2: an American movement in
philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that
the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of
thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical
consequences of belief.—Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
As readers of “The Enneagram Monthly” may know, Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, “Bait and
Switch,” describes the author’s meeting with a “career coach” referred to as “Morton” and
his nine dolls representing the Enneagram types. She goes on to harshly criticize Morton
(rightly, I believe, if her depiction of their meeting was accurate) and say some negative
things about the Enneagram in general.
Ginger Bogda’s fine series of articles addressed the ethical uses of the Enneagram in
business (which appeared in recent issues of EM). I would like to address another question
raised by Ehrenreich’s book: What should a model of the Enneagram look like in order to
be appropriate to the business world, specifically, and to others outside of the traditional
psycho-spiritual audiences that have already embraced the system?
Let me state my bias at the outset: I make my living teaching the Enneagram to people in
business. When the opportunity arises I present to non-business audiences as well. While
the needs of my business audience have shaped the model of the Enneagram I present, I
consider it a model for pragmatists—people who are seeking growth but uninterested in
the mystical, psycho-spiritual elements so often associated with the Enneagram.
The blessing and the curse of the Enneagram of Personality is that, unlike other
typologies, nobody owns it and there is no “official” body of knowledge. Instead, there are
a number of Enneagram models (such as Riso/Hudson’s, Helen Palmer’s, and
Hurley/Donson’s) that have risen to the top and become dominant. People wanting to
teach the Enneagram to other’s have either had to receive education in an existing model
and then license the creator’s intellectual property or create their own independent models.
This article addresses four fundamental principles that underlie my approach and should
be considered by anyone constructing a model of the Enneagram to present to business.
Future articles will cover the model itself (see box on page at the end of this page).
Please note that this is not an effort to pass judgment on other models of the Enneagram;
it is an examination of appropriateness for specific audiences. Many of the existing models,
such as those mentioned above, have much to offer and I have learned from each of them.
However, if the Enneagram is ever going to be taken seriously as a tool for business use
or even become more widely accepted as a self-help tool, practitioners and teachers must
become more conscious of the needs of those audiences and the language with which
they are comfortable.
Principle One: Less is More and Simple is better than Complicated.
Corollary: Give them the notes; let them play their own melody.
I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the
simplicity on the other side of complexity.—attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes
One of the attractive things about the Enneagram of Personality, at least to some
audiences, is its richness and complexity. Various authors explore a multitude of
approaches to the model comprising a vast array of topics: type, subtype, wings, levels,
vices, virtues, essential aspects, directions of movement, various groupings of the types;
the list goes on and on. One could spend a lifetime studying the details and various
characteristics of the types.
One of the unattractive things about the Enneagram of Personality, at least to some
audiences, is its richness and complexity. Type, subtype, wings, levels, vices, virtues… It’s
enough to make your head hurt.
There are few people who would not benefit from the increased self-awareness that can be
achieved through exploring the Enneagram of Personality; at the same time, most people
have neither the time nor the inclination to be the dedicated “seekers” that are often found
in Enneagram circles.
This dilemma is at the heart of one of the challenges I’ve faced in my work as a consultant.
There is no better tool than the Enneagram for achieving one of the things I need my
clients to achieve—deep and useful self-awareness—but it must be achieved relatively
quickly and be easily remembered by people who have tremendous demands on their time
and attention. Too much detail causes their eyes to glaze over; they want something that
has the biggest payoff in the shortest amount of time.
Of course, it is not possible to solve complex personal or interpersonal challenges in a
short time. Insight grows over time and deeper insights yield greater benefits. Someone
presenting the Enneagram can, however, construct their model in a way that provides
precise, easily remembered insights that can be applied in a variety of ways.
The Pareto Principle is useful here: 20% of the investment (whether it be time, energy or
money) usually provides 80% of the dividend (when it is the “right” 20%); the other 80% of
the investment provides the other 20% of the dividend. Thus, it is important to remember
this fundamental principle of leverage when constructing a model of the Enneagram: focus
on the information that provides the biggest payoff in the shortest time and leave the rest
for another day.
As you will see in the articles of that follow, my Enneagram model is pretty simple, primarily
focusing on the interplay of the Nine strategies that Robert Tallon and I discuss in our
book, “From Awareness to Action.” When a client can remember that they get into trouble
when they overdo their preferred strategy and under-do their neglected strategy, they can
gain a lot of benefit. When they can remember the preferred strategy of a coworker and
infer the significance of that preferred strategy (“Harry is an Eight and Eights strive to be
powerful, therefore I should remember that…”), the client can reap huge dividends from a
small investment.
An Enneagram model that is too complex or too detailed, or a presentation that provides
too much information and seeks to address every situation that a client might face, will end
up being far less effective than a model that presents fundamental principles and examples
of how to apply them.
I’ve long been impressed with my clients’ abilities to take the Enneagram information they
receive from me and apply it in clever and creative ways. Therefore, my goal is to enable
them to extrapolate in their own style. A great analogy (thanks to my friend Teri Meehan for
this) is “the notes and the melody.” Teach them the notes, and give them examples of how
they might create a melody, then get out of their way and let them compose for themselves.
A user of the Enneagram must also understand its strengths and its limits. It is not a model
that explains the whole of the human condition. It does not effectively or precisely track to
other models of the psyche such as Myers-Briggs; object relations or attachment theory;
Freud’s model of the ego, id, and superego; or the work of Karen Horney. It can be used
as a complement to any of these models, but they all measure different things. Attempts to
directly correlate them ultimately seem forced or contrived, ultimately making the model
more complicated than it needs to be.
A pragmatic model of the Enneagram must make its way to the simplicity on the other side
of complexity.
Principle Two: A “secular” and scientific Enneagram is needed for the business
world.
“However splendid our languages and cultures, however rich and subtle our minds,
however vast our creative powers, the mental process is the product of a brain shaped by
the hammer of natural selection upon the anvil of nature.” –E.O. Wilson “On Human Nature”
Note: In our climate of culture war, the word “secular” is highly charged for many people. I
am not making any judgment on the value or utility of religion or spirituality in this article. I
am merely addressing the language and content that should be used for a specific
audience.
Since many people who are drawn to the Enneagram have a spiritual or psychological
bent, the models of the Enneagram that often get taken into the business world are framed
in language that is either blatantly or subtly tinged with spiritual or psychological overtones.
This is often a problem. While many individuals in corporations may be interested in
spirituality or psychology, corporate people are resistant to such talk at a macro level. Put
another way, you can often talk about spirituality and psychology with a client one-on-one,
but they start to cringe when you try to do it in a group.
Further, individually or collectively, people outside of the classic Enneagram audience tend
to be more challenging and expect greater precision. Soft and fuzzy language, words like
“Being,” “Essence,” “Presence,” etc., are too nebulous to be useful in that environment.
Likewise, language pertaining to virtues and vices, “the spiritual dimension,” ancient
wisdom, etc., evoke images of religion and mysticism that are unappealing to the pragmatic
audience. In addition, the myth that the Enneagram of Personality is in some way “ancient
wisdom” further undermines its credibility to a pragmatic audience by being unproven. I
have yet to see any evidence of links to the Enneagram as process model that pre-date
Gurdjieff. Nor have I seen any evidence of the Enneagram as a model of personality that
pre-dates Oscar Ichazo’s work or the more fully developed work of Claudio Naranjo. The
1960’s hardly qualify as “ancient.”
Speaking of Naranjo: If my house was on fire and I could only grab one Enneagram book
(including my own), it would be Naranjo’s “Character and Neursosis.” Unfortunately, his
focus on neurosis and his technical language, which are understandable for a psychiatrist
and appropriate for his target audience, make his book unusable for a pragmatic
audience. Even the work of Riso and Hudson, with the construct of “Levels of
Development” and focus on “healthy, average, and unhealthy” behavior, will send most
human resource people scurrying for cover. When I began using the Enneagram in
business, I gave my clients Riso and Hudson’s “Personality Types” to read. Before long,
people were labeling each other in terms of health. Usually, the person talking was
emphasizing his or her own “healthiness” and pointing out someone else’s “unhealthiness.”
In addition to the ethical problem with labeling others as “unhealthy,” there are significant
legal considerations regarding this language in the workplace.
In addition to secularization, a pragmatic approach to the Enneagram will benefit from
relying on the latest science rather than “ancient wisdom.” Recently, someone writing in the
pages of EM suggested that anyone teaching the Enneagram should immerse themselves
in Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, the Desert Fathers, etc. I would counter that if you really want to
understand how the mind works, immerse yourself in Charles Darwin to give you the right
context, then dive into E. O. Wilson’s socio-biology classic “On Human Nature” and Richard
Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene” before moving on to Matt Ridley, Joseph LeDoux, Antonio
Damasio, Paul Bloom, Steven Pinker, Timothy Wilson, and some other the other brilliant
and accessible authors writing about genetics and neuroscience. I love reading Gurdjieff
and the Sufis as much as the next person, but—and I apologize in advance—they are the
theoretical equivalent of the Commodore 64: an interesting part of the history of the study
of the mind, but the technology has moved on.
Pragmatic audiences, especially business audiences, expect the latest technology. In the
study of the mind, the latest technology is not found in the desert; it is found in the
laboratory.
Validation of both type assessments and the fundamental suppositions of the Enneagram
(i.e., agreed-upon definitions of commonly shared characteristics of the Ennea-types) are
also critical to the further acceptance of the Enneagram by pragmatic audiences. Despite
Ehrenreich’s comments in “Bait and Switch,” Jerry Wagner’s WEPPS assessment has very
strong validation and reliability support and I have found it to be the most accurate and
corporate-friendly of the popular Enneagram-type assessments. Riso and Hudson have
done important work in beginning to validate the “realness” of the types. More needs to be
done, however.
By a “scientific approach” I also mean that one’s model of the Enneagram must hold up to
the scientific method: hypothesize, test, observe, and conclude. What you teach must be
internally consistent and rigorously tested for accuracy.
Unfortunately, typical Enneagram workshop audiences are “soft” audiences—they have
been dazzled by certain insights and want to agree with the person conducting the
presentation. They may also see the system as all-inclusive: if one part of it is right, the
rest must be right as well. Or they may fall into a pattern of only seeing confirming
evidence, ignoring assertions that are not consistent with their experience or observations
either unconsciously or out of simple politeness.
Therefore, some of the ideas that make it into the Enneagram literature are not particularly
solid, and they go unquestioned by the teacher taking them into the business world.
Witness our friend “Morton,” for example, who told Ehrenreich that her type (which reads
like a Four), would not be a good writer. It is easy to dismiss this as a ridiculous misuse of
the system unsupported by data, but there are prominent Enneagram teachers who make
assertions such as “Fours always wear purple or black,” “Fives tend to bathe less than
other types,” and “Nines like self-help workshops and camping.” Only a soft audience
would allow these untested generalizations to go unchallenged.
Business audiences are not soft audiences, however. In fact, they tend to be challenging
and skeptical, and on average probably a lot smarter than the presenter. They sniff out
inaccuracy, inconsistency, and fuzziness and will either tune you out (if you are lucky) and
begin catching up on email on their Blackberries or they will turn on you like sharks that
sniff blood. If you can spend a day teaching the Enneagram to a group of 30 engineers or
lawyers and survive, your model is solid.
One way to ensure that your model is solid is to apply the scientific method to what you
learn and what you teach. Does an idea hold up in your experience? Does it hold up when
applied to a statistically useful, non-Enneagram indoctrinated sample? If so, use it; if not,
toss it.
The Dalai Lama, when asked what would happen if science proved to contradict some
basic tenets of Buddhism, replied “We would have to change Buddhism.” Enneagram
teachers must hold themselves to the same principles of logic, reason, and rigor. If the
evidence contradicts the theory, the theory must change.
One final comment in this area:
Models of the Enneagram that revolve around science fiction, cartoon, or fairy-tale
characters as exemplars are simply inappropriate for the business world. Shakespeare,
Homer, movies aimed at grown-ups, etc. are generally better, though the references will
probably be unfamiliar to the classic business audience.
A simple rule of thumb is: justly or not, if it would get you ostracized in high school it will get
you ostracized in the corporate world.
And, please, leave the dolls home.
Principle Three: Remaining Static is the problem; becoming Responsive is the
solution.
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one
most responsive to change.”—Charles Darwin
Here, we get to the “So, what?” query of the pragmatic audience. What is the value of this
to me? How can it help me in my daily life? Why should I spend my time listening to you
while work is piling up on my desk?
The case for the practical benefit of your Enneagram model must be made.
Darwin’s comment, or course, refers to biological adaptation through mechanisms that
generally take millennia to occur, but the concept applies at a micro level as well. As
individuals, we are successful when we adapt (respond) to the changing demands of our
environment; we are unsuccessful when we try to hold on to an unchanging set of
behaviors and attitudes that have outgrown their usefulness or are inappropriate for our
circumstances.
Let’s be sure to clarify what I mean by “successful” here—for the sake of this article I am
not necessarily talking about material success, market primacy, athletic conquest, etc.,
(though these are fine things). Rather, I mean the ability to flexibly respond to your
environment in a way that allows you to develop efficacy in your dealings with the world,
harmony in your relationships, and contentment in your heart. (Accomplish this and you will
have accomplished a lot.)
The Enneagram can serve as a map on how to move from resistance to responsiveness.
As I will explain in the next article, the inner triangle of the Enneagram can serve as a
metaphor for the process by which we become stuck in ineffective habitual patterns and
how we can become unstuck. The nine Ennea-types are the specific patterns we can
become stuck in. More specifically, the nine strategies are the themes that underlie the
patterns. Thus, the most important lesson for a One is that he tends to get into trouble
when he overdoes his preferred strategy of “striving to be perfect.” When he goes off track
he can look for the problematic behaviors or attitudes that stem from this strategy and then
modify them accordingly.
It’s not always that simple, of course, and I often explore other aspects of the mind
addressed by this model. The key idea, however, is to give the client simple, logically
connected concepts (the notes) that can be used in a variety of ways to creatively address
the everyday challenges they face (the melody).
Principle Four: Focus on growth rather than dysfunction.
Corollary: You can’t change who you are, but you can change who you will be.
“Think what you would be; then do what you must.”—Epictetus
The language of “the Fall” permeates the Enneagram literature, as it does most of western
tradition. The common view holds that we are dysfunctional versions of what we should be
rather than “in-progress” versions of what we could be.
Theories of human flaw—the Christian tradition of original sin, the Freudian “id” needing to
be reigned in, etc.—are deeply rooted in our psyches despite a modern focus on self-
actualization, positive psychology, and the like. We believe that we have gone to sleep and
must wake up (though we see ourselves as more awake than other people). We say that
we have forgotten our true selves and must remember our true nature or contact with our
Essence.
We feel like we should be somehow “better” than we are and then beat up on ourselves for
falling short. Consciously or not, we tend to see ourselves as disappointments and failures.
In short, we see ourselves as angels fallen.
Instead, we should see ourselves as primates evolved. Rather than see ourselves as
sinful, sleeping, or stupid, perhaps we should see ourselves as marvels of nature who are
sometimes ineffectively programmed.
The language of the Fall not only keeps us mired in feeling bad about ourselves, it is
simply inconsistent with what we now know of how the brain, and thus the mind, works. The
“you” that is reading this right now is the cumulative result of a set of genes actualized into
neurons and synapses shaped and reinforced in the crucible of experience.
“Consciousness” is the activity and interactions of those neurons and synapses. It should
be understood as a verb rather than a noun, as what our brain does rather than who we
are. This may seem bleak and overly materialistic to some, lacking the richness of spiritual
language (though I would disagree), but it is a view more conducive to growth and
development than the language of the Fall.
Let me explain:
Change is difficult and when we try to change we often fail—and we fail repeatedly in the
beginning. If we see our failed attempts as shortcomings, as signs of our deficiency, we
berate ourselves and then we stop trying. (No one likes a scold, even if it resides between
our own ears. The best way to make a scold stop berating us is to rob it of ammunition.
The best way to do that is to simply stop trying to change.)
The deficiency model tends to be, therefore, counterproductive to growth.
A more effective way to grow is to understand that our habitual patterns are a productive of
the initial and ongoing hardwiring of our brains. At the risk of oversimplification, we perform
a behavior because a stimulus activates a specific part of our brain. That part of the brain
sends a message through synaptic connections to another part of our brain, which
executes a response to the stimulus. (For example, a snake crosses my path; one part of
my brain registers the snake and sends a message to another part of my brain; I run.)
The more frequently we execute a specific response, the stronger the synaptic
connections become, making it more likely that we will execute that reaction again in the
future. The synapses literally become denser and more insulated, making the transfer of
information easier. Thus, behavior becomes habitual. The brain is taking the path of least
resistance to solve a problem.
Personal change and growth is an exercise in neuroplasticity. “Neuroplasticity” is the ability
of the wiring of the brain to change overtime. The repetitive practice of a new thought or
behavior strengthens the synapses connecting the part of the brain that receives a
stimulus and the part of the brain that issues a new response. This means that the new
behavior becomes “easier” over time. At the same time, the synaptic connections linked to
the “old” behavior start to atrophy due to decreased use. Eventually, the new behavior
becomes the default response.
Change has occurred.
It is not enough to realize that “You are not your personality” and begin embracing your
essence. There may be more to you than your personality, if you define personality as the
behavioral face you show to others. You are not, however, some mystical essence that
exists external to the sum of your biology and your experiences. You are who you are, but
by acknowledging the way the brain really works and exercising its potential for plasticity,
you can become who you want to be.
The language of “the Fall” may seem richer and somehow deeper than all this talk of
neurons and synapses, and I find that many people invested in a spiritual path sometimes
resist it as somehow lacking in majesty. But I disagree. If you want majesty, look at pictures
of magnified synapses and neurons and study how the most sophisticated three pounds of
matter in the universe really works.
As Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy.”
A model of the Enneagram aimed at pragmatists should abandon the language of the Fall,
let go of the past, and focus on systematic growth.
Future articles will focus on the components of a pragmatic model of the Enneagram.
Future articles will address the model of the Enneagram that I teach to my corporate clients and the people who attend my public workshops. The components of the model are: The Instincts—These are the three fundamental instinctive drives—self- preservation, social, and sexual (or one-to-one)—often discussed in Enneagram literature as either the “subtypes” or the “instinctual variants.” The instincts are at the root of our values and therefore affect everything we do. The Inner Triangle—The inner triangle of the Enneagram (which connects points Three, Six, and Nine) is used to represent both: • The process by which ineffective behavior becomes conditioned in us (I call this “Creating the Story”) and • The process by which we can modify those behaviors (the “Awareness to Action” process). The Strategies—The core of personality type. The strategies are the cognitive, affective, and behavioral themes that underlie each type’s approach to their world. The Basic Qualities—The nine Basic Qualities are inherent aspects of human nature. They are part of “who we are” from the beginning, but in an immature form. Their development and nurturing become stunted through the socialization process. Nurturing the maturation of the Basic Qualities is fundamental to growth. The Accelerators—The nine Accelerators are practices that help to nurture the maturation of the Basic Qualities. Note: I generally cover only the Inner Triangle and the Strategies when presenting the Enneagram to a business group, because of time constraints and complexity. When coaching a corporate client, I teach the other elements of the model as they are appropriate. While I will write about each of these elements in future articles in this series, Robert Tallon and I have covered the Strategies and the Awareness to Action Process in our book, “From Awareness to Action.” |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |