Start with the Instinctual Biases: Using the Enneagram in Organizations, Part 3
Yes, the "ennea” in “Enneagram” is Greek for “nine” and the Enneagram is generally understood as a model of nine personality types. But over the years of working with the system in organizations, I have come to see the power in seeing the Enneagram as a model of two independent but interlocking elements—the three instinctual biases and the nine strategies.
I almost never teach only one of those elements, and I generally introduce the three instinctual biases first. If I can only teach one, I focus on the instinctual biases.*
There are several reasons for this.
The first reason is that there are only three instinctual biases (Preserving, Navigating, and Transmitting), it is easier to teach a model with three variables than a model with nine variables. Since, as I wrote previously, time is often limited for presentations to executive groups, teaching three of something takes much less time than teaching nine of something. And because the instinctual biases are so vivid in the lives of people around us, people typically “buy into” and digest the instinctual biases more easily than the nine strategies.
Corporate audiences are much more skeptical than self-help audiences, but once the clients see the accuracy and value of the descriptions of the instinctual biases, they are much more open to hearing about the nine strategies and the types they shape. This makes them more willing to provide extra time for additional time or follow-up sessions.
But simplicity and buy-in are not the only reasons. Perhaps more importantly, long experience has shown me that the three instinctual biases may be even more relevant than the types to the world of work.
The instinctual biases are a particular expression of attention to and valuing of activities in three domains of life. (The strategies are nine styles of satisfying those values.) Everyone “does” some of the behaviors in each instinctual domain, but they do so disproportionately (i.e., some more than others). Further, they express feelings, thoughts, and behaviors related to the domains with a particular attitude. We approach one domain as a “zone of enthusiasm,” one as a “zone of inner conflict,” and one as a “zone of indifference.”
Just as the instinctual domains consist of life needs for the individual, they are also the functional needs of an organization. For example, we can see operations and finance as “Preserving” activities, marketing and much of human resources and organizational development as “Navigating” activities, and innovation and sales as “Transmitting” activities.
In the same way that individuals have a bias toward one domain, teams and organizations often exhibit the same tendencies and create weak spots in the organization, the root of which they do not understand. At a more specific level, individuals with different instinctual biases frequently clash over differing values and priorities. The instinctual biases, which are in fact patterns of values and priorities, frequently lead to such conflicts. Due to the pattern of expression of our biases, you may be “enthusiastic” about something that I am “indifferent” to, or vice versa, and this mismatch causes us to clash. Understanding our own instinctual bias and that of those we work with helps to better negotiate priorities and compromise over values in a way that satisfies both parties.
Finally, teaching the instinctual biases first reduces mistyping. We all know that there are differences among people of a given Enneagram type. Transmitting Nines do not look quite like Preserving Nines; Preserving Sixes don’t look quite like Transmitting Sixes, etc. Some of the Enneagram Types are look-alikes: Sevens, for example, share certain characteristics with Nines and Twos, and other characteristics with Threes and Eights.
When we understand the instinctual biases, we better understand the nuances of type and can explain to our clients the reason for these distinctions and similarities, making the content clearer and more useful. We can help them see that someone may look like, say, an Eight is really a Six with a Transmitting instinctual bias and that treating them like an Eight will have negative consequences. Being able to make these distinctions is much easier and seems more credible when you have presented the instinctual biases first.
(Of course, helping people understand the nine types helps them understand the variations in people who share an instinctual bias as well, so it is ideal to teach both. But, again, it is easier to start with three than with nine.)
So, it is my experience that the instinctual biases have an immediate, clear, and functionally relevant usefulness in organizations, and they greatly enhance our ability to teach the nine types.
Teaching the Enneagram in organizations works better when you teach them first.
*There are times, of course, when a client simply wants training on the nine types, and if it is a short program they want, I will keep the focus on the types. Even then, however, I will start the session by telling the group that the Enneagram (or at least the ATA Approach to the Enneagram) is, in fact, a system of two elements and that the other element—the three instinctual biases—is beyond the scope of the session; then I direct them to additional resources about the instinctual biases they can explore on their own.