The Enneagram: Understanding Ourselves and Others

Imagine a management meeting. One person wants to get on with the decision. Another wants to examine the risks. A third is concerned about how the decision will affect the people involved.

Twenty minutes later, they are still talking. The first thinks the others are making a meal of it. The second thinks the first is being reckless. The third wonders why nobody seems to be listening to anyone else.

Sound familiar?

It is easy to assume that the problem is other people. If only they would be more decisive, more careful, more understanding or more realistic, things would work much better.

But what if there is another way of looking at it?

Perhaps these people are not being difficult for the sake of it. Perhaps they are seeing different things, worrying about different things and trying to achieve different things.

And perhaps we do the same ourselves.

This is one reason I find the Enneagram interesting. It offers a way of understanding why people can look at exactly the same situation and respond in quite different ways.

Looking beneath the surface

We all develop familiar ways of thinking, feeling and behaving. Some serve us well. Others cause problems, particularly when we are under pressure.

The difficulty is that we don't always see our own patterns clearly. We tend to see the good intentions behind our behaviour, while other people experience its less attractive side.

We may think we are maintaining high standards when others experience us as critical. We may believe we are being helpful when we are actually taking over.

We may see ourselves as calm and easy-going when others are frustrated because we won't address an awkward issue.

And the person who thinks they are simply being practical may be completely baffled that anyone finds them difficult.

The Enneagram helps us look beyond what people do to consider what might be driving them. It forms the first lens of the Five Lens People Development model, which uses five complementary lenses to deepen our understanding of people and their behaviour.

We are not simply one style. We can express all nine to varying degrees, although some come more naturally to us than others. Our responses can also change with the circumstances and the pressure we are under.

Consider two people who work exceptionally hard. One may be driven by a desire to maintain high standards; another by a determination to achieve results. Their behaviour may look much the same, but what motivates them can be quite different.

That difference matters.

If I value quick decisions, I may see someone who asks lots of questions as obstructive. If I value careful analysis, I may see someone who wants to move quickly as reckless.

Yet the person asking questions may be trying to prevent an expensive mistake, while the person pushing for action may be trying to deliver something the organisation desperately needs.

Neither is necessarily wrong. And neither has to be entirely right.

The point is not to excuse poor behaviour or avoid difficult decisions. It is to understand what may be behind the behaviour so that we can deal with it more constructively. That applies to ourselves just as much as it does to others.

Nine styles, nine different contributions

The Five Lens model gives the nine styles workplace-oriented names. Each brings something useful, although each can become unhelpful when taken too far.

As you read these descriptions, you may recognise yourself in several. That is perfectly normal. The aim is not to put yourself in a box, but to notice the patterns you tend to rely on.

1. Quality — “There must be a better way of doing this.”

Quality brings high standards and a desire to do things properly. The downside? Perfectionism, criticism and the feeling that nobody else seems to care enough.

2. Service — “What can I do to help?”

Service brings care, generosity and attentiveness to others. But helping can turn into taking over, and looking after everyone else can come at the expense of looking after yourself.

3. Delivery — “Let's get on with it.”

Delivery brings energy, adaptability and a focus on results. It gets things moving. But sometimes the drive to achieve the goal leaves too little time for people, quality or reflection.

4. Creativity — “Is there another way of looking at this?”

Creativity brings imagination, originality and fresh perspectives. It helps us see possibilities. But the search for something better can make it difficult to appreciate what is already working.

5. Insight — “Let me understand this properly first.”

Insight brings curiosity, analysis and independent thinking. It helps us make sense of complex problems. But there comes a point when more thinking is simply more thinking, and someone has to make a decision.

6. Vigilance — “What could go wrong?”

Vigilance helps us spot risks and question assumptions. It can save an organisation from expensive mistakes. But if every possibility has to be considered before we move, progress can be painfully slow.

7. Vision — “What possibilities are we missing?”

Vision brings optimism, ideas and enthusiasm for what might be possible. It helps people look ahead. The difficulty is that the next exciting idea can distract us from finishing the last one.

8. Drive — “Let's deal with this.”

Drive brings directness, decisiveness and a willingness to confront problems. It is valuable when others are reluctant to act. But being forceful enough to get things done can make it harder for others to speak honestly.

9. Harmony — “Can we find a way to work together?”

Harmony brings patience, acceptance and an ability to see different perspectives. It helps people get along. But keeping everyone happy is not always possible, and avoiding an uncomfortable conversation rarely makes the problem disappear.

None of these styles is better than the others. Organisations need high standards, results, fresh ideas, careful thought, healthy challenge and people who can work together.

The trouble starts when we rely so heavily on our preferred way of doing things that we mistake a different approach for a bad one.

A lesson from recruitment

I remember a recruitment decision that taught me something about how easily we can misjudge people.

We were considering someone who had held a considerable number of jobs. I looked at their employment history and dismissed them rather quickly. I had already decided what those frequent job changes meant.

A more senior manager saw things differently. Rather than concentrating on the employment history, they asked the candidate about their military experience.

What emerged was that this was not someone particularly suited to leading others, but someone exceptionally good at following clear instructions and getting things done.

The manager reasoned that, provided this person was carefully managed, they could be a tremendous asset to the business.

They were right.

Give this person something to do, and they would move heaven and earth to get it done. The relationship proved extremely fruitful for the business.

I had looked at the same information and reached a very different conclusion. I saw a history of frequent job changes and made assumptions about the person. My colleague asked different questions and recognised a strength I had overlooked.

The lesson was not that my colleague was always right or that employment history is irrelevant. It was that I had reached my judgement too quickly.

Sometimes, what looks like a weakness is a clue to where someone might thrive.

Instead of asking only, “Is this person right for the job?”, we might also ask, “What are this person's strengths? What environment will allow them to use those strengths? And how can we manage them effectively?”

That is just as relevant when we are working with people already in our teams. We can spend a great deal of energy wishing someone were different, when we might achieve much more by understanding what they do well and what helps them do it.

A practical exercise: seeing a disagreement differently

Think of a recent disagreement in your management team.

Perhaps someone wanted to press ahead with a new initiative while another person raised concerns about the cost, workload or risks.

The first thought the second was being negative. The second thought the first was rushing into something without thinking it through.

Both may have had the organisation's interests at heart.

The first may have been expressing Delivery, with its focus on progress and results. The second may have been expressing Vigilance, with its focus on anticipating problems. Or there may have been other motivations involved. We cannot know without asking.

Imagine the person pushing for action explaining why the initiative matters, while inviting the other to identify the most significant risks. The person raising concerns could acknowledge the intended benefits and suggest ways to address those risks.

They might still disagree. But instead of arguing about who is being unreasonable, they would be examining the decision itself and what would make it work.

The same situation could arise in a school, with a headmaster or headmistress keen to introduce a new initiative and a teacher concerned about the workload or its impact on lessons.

Try this with your own team:

1. Think of a recent disagreement. What happened, and how did each person see the situation?
2. Ask what might have been driving each person. Were they concerned about standards, results, risks, relationships or something else?
3. Consider the other person's perspective. What might they have been trying to achieve or protect?
4. Ask what you could each do differently next time. How could you make the conversation more productive?

The important word here is each. It is very easy to use a model like this to explain what is wrong with someone else. The more useful question is what we ourselves might be contributing to the situation.

The harder part: recognising ourselves

Most of us are reasonably good at spotting other people's faults. Recognising our own is a different matter.

We can be remarkably inventive when explaining why our behaviour is justified. We are being thorough, not perfectionistic. We are being helpful, not interfering. We are keeping the peace, not avoiding a difficult conversation.

There may be some truth in those explanations. But there may be something else going on as well.

Someone who tends towards Quality might ask whether their standards are helping the team or simply making everyone anxious about getting something wrong.

Someone who leans towards Service might consider whether their help is enabling others or preventing them from taking responsibility.

Someone who relies on Delivery might ask whether getting things done quickly is coming at the expense of getting the right things done.

These are not always comfortable questions. But they are worth asking.

We all have habits that may once have served us well. The trouble is that we can keep using them long after they have stopped helping.

Knowing what we do is not the same as being able to stop doing it. Old habits have a way of reappearing just when we thought we had dealt with them.

Awareness does not magically change our behaviour, but it gives us a chance to catch ourselves in the act. We can recognise what is happening and ask whether a different response might serve us better.

We don't need to become different people. We need to become more aware of how we are being the people we already are.

Understanding people, starting with ourselves

For anyone leading people, this has real practical value.

Understanding a colleague does not mean agreeing with everything they say, lowering standards or avoiding difficult decisions. It means recognising that people bring different strengths and concerns, and learning how to use those differences to better effect.

A team that values Quality needs people who can also drive progress. People who spot risks need colleagues who can see possibilities.

Directness has its place, but so does the ability to listen. Harmony matters, but not if it means leaving important issues unresolved.

The same applies to our personal relationships. How often do we assume we know why someone has behaved as they have, without ever asking? How often do we react to what we think their behaviour means, rather than trying to understand what is actually going on?

A little curiosity can save us a great deal of unnecessary aggravation.

The Enneagram, as used within the Five Lens approach, offers one framework for exploring these differences. I would not suggest that it has all the answers, or that a description of a style can tell us everything we need to know about a person.

Its value, for me, lies in the questions it encourages us to ask:

Why am I reacting this way?

What might I be missing about the other person?

How is my behaviour affecting those around me?

Am I using one of my strengths in a way that has become unhelpful?

What could I do differently?

We cannot always change other people's behaviour. We will not always agree, and understanding someone does not guarantee that we will get along.

But we can take responsibility for our own responses. We can become a little less certain that our way of seeing things is the only reasonable one. And we can become more interested in understanding people before deciding what is wrong with them.

If the Enneagram helps us do that, it has served a useful purpose.

After all, most of us could probably benefit from understanding ourselves a little better. And the people who have to work with us might appreciate it too.