Working with the Enneagram

Working with an Eight, by Dennis Tallon

(This blog entry was contributed by Dennis Tallon, a partner with Awareness to Action International. Find out more about Dennis at: http://www.awarenesstoaction.com/who.html or contact him at dennis@awarenesstoaction.com.)

Phil Davis worked with M&E Engineering, Inc. for 40 years. He began at M&E after a brief stint with another engineering firm. When he started at M & E Engineering he knew he had found his dream job. He had worked for bright, experienced and strong engineers before he became the president of the company, some 30 years later. His role models were two men. One man was a brilliant engineer who lived in his head, seemed uncomfortable around people, and spoke only when spoken to. The other man was also a brilliant engineer who was always on the go, critical of others, and a perfectionist. Phil himself was always confident, assertive, and had a reputation, early on, as someone who shot from the hip; Phil often spoke before he thought. They called him “fire, ready, aim Phil”. He was a powerful leader who always seemed to have followers. Phil loved an audience so he could tell everyone what he believed, why he believed it, and why they should believe it too. Phil Davis was the classic narcissistic, boundaryless, one-up leader. Phil was also an Eight in the Enneagram.

I was brought into the company at the request of a fellow management consultant who had been working with Phil Davis and his executive team for about six months. She was making little progress, and as she put it, “he’s an arrogant jerk who always thinks he’s right and doesn’t listen—to me, his people, anyone.” She had had enough and asked me if I would assist her in working with Phil and his team and I welcomed the challenge. Having worked with leaders like him I knew what to expect, but Phil surpassed even my expectations. He was an arrogant man who always thought he was right. Phil didn’t listen; he was patriarchal and a wise guy. There was nothing he didn’t think he could say and do. In my 25+ years in consulting, Phil Davis has been my greatest challenge, and I’m happy to say, one of my greatest successes.

My consultant friend, Kathy Elder, eventually asked me to take over the project. She bowed out leaving me as the lone consultant. Kathy was relieved to not have to deal with Phil any longer. I remember as if it was yesterday our first meeting when he told me, “I think this consulting stuff is BS and I’m only doing it because the board wants me to. I don’t like consultants and I don’t particularly like you either”. The challenge was on. I knew I had to be strong, not make him look bad, assure him that I knew what I was doing, I could make his life easier, and his board happy again. He reluctantly gave me the go ahead to conduct a 360 assessment. He was intrigued when I asked him to pick the people he wanted me to talk with and he proceeded to give me a list of names including subordinates, colleagues in the industry, a close friend, a couple of clients, his two sons (one estranged), and his wife. To make a long story short, the assessment data blew him away because everyone said the same thing, regardless of where it came from, his wife, two sons, clients, best friend, and subordinates. The data of his strengths and weaknesses/challenges included:

Strengths – vision, strong speaker, ability to get people excited about a cause (convincing), ability to lead, willingness to make the tough decisions, likeable when in a good mood, enthusiastic, self-confident, protective (company & family), self-reliant.

Weaknesses – doesn’t listen, tendency to bully and overpower people (aggressive), it has to be his way, asks people for input and then criticizes their comments (insensitive), needs to be right, controlling, and will yell (rage) at people and scare them.

My 360-feedback session with Phil was disturbing, powerful, and life altering for him. He was blown away by the data, especially when he realized everyone said the same thing, and most importantly, his wife and two sons. I asked him if he wanted to work on augmenting his strengths and learning from his weaknesses; he reluctantly said yes.

Phil and I embarked upon a two-year journey meeting monthly and some times twice a month. I’m happy to say that Phil used the same power and self-confidence in facing his demons. He began to realize that being empathetic and vulnerable were not signs of weakness but of strength. He expanded his understanding of what power, leadership and strength were and it translated into a new relationship with his executive team, his board and most significantly – his wife and two sons.

During a meeting Phil and I had, some months later (which turned out to be a defining moment for him), was when I asked him if he could remember a time when he was vulnerable. There was a time not that long ago when Phil would have interpreted the word vulnerable as weak and sissy like but my gut told me, based on our work together, he was ready to answer the question. He thought about the question for a few minutes and started talking about his cattle ranch. Phil grew up on a cattle ranch in

Wyoming

where his Dad (also a very powerful man), instilled in his son the belief that you had to be strong, decisive and never show pain or weakness. Finally, Phil started talking about the time he helped his Dad with the birth of a foal. He went into great detail and while talking his voice changed and got softer; his eyes began to glisten. I listened and was moved by his gentleness, compassion and genuine caring for this little animal. I felt I could go deeper and I asked if he could think of another time when he felt vulnerable. Phil began to share an experience with his son, and then his wife. By this time he was very emotional and tears were running down his cheeks. At first he tried to hold back the tears, I encouraged him to let go; he cried openly. At that moment in time, I knew he got it and for minutes we just sat together. The moment was profound. We met the next day, and we began to talk about how this could translate into his life as a leader, father, and husband. I’m happy to say he grew to become a magnanimous leader, caring father, and husband. Phil went from being a narcissistic, aggressive man to a strong, powerful, compassionate, and mentoring leader. When he began to see positive changes with his executive team, his board and staff, he was encouraged. The greatest impact was when he saw his relationship with his wife and two sons change in a healthy and positive way. He would share with me conversations he had with his sons the likes of which he had never had before. He would say, “Dennis, good things happen when you listen and ask questions and not tell people what they should do all the time”.

The point of the story is to illustrate that when we are willing to be open, to be creative and not be reactive, we can learn things about our self – what motivates us, what are our fears, how we affect other people, how can we be more responsible, and accountable to ourselves and others. Phil’s life changed when he got in touch with his fears and his blind spots. Phil is still a very strong and powerful man, he is also a more aware, present, and more in-touch leader.

Phil has since retired. He became the best and most well respected President & CEO that M & E Engineering has ever had. He now works part time as a consultant to the company. Whenever I see him he gives me a big hug, and at times will acknowledge that he never thought he would ever hug a guy in public.

Living a Situational Life by Bob Tallon

This post was contributed by Bob Tallon, co-author of "Awareness to Action: The Enneagram, Emotional Intelligence and Change."

Imagine if you never changed your communication or decision-making style, that it was always the same, regardless of circumstances. You’d be similar to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, who was always predictable, always logical, unemotional, and factual. He frustrated his opposite: the passionate, emotional, and intuitive Captain Kirk. Kirk was just as predictable as Spock, but in a different way. I was fascinated by the contrast between these two characters. They both had “strong” personalities: determined, willful, and consistent. I could always rely on their reactions. Neither Spock nor Kirk seemed very adaptable, and that was part of the fun of watching them. Week after week I’d anticipate how their responses to situations got them in or out of trouble. How similar is your life? How predictable or adaptable are you?
    Part of maturing is learning how to adjust your attitudes and behaviors. That’s a good thing. It’s evolution. The survivors are the ones who adjust most effectively.
    The approach called Situational Leadership states that effective leaders change their leadership style depending on the situation. Less effective leaders are pretty much stuck with one style. They fall into the “One Trick Pony” category and believe in the “I gotta be me” approach. On the other hand, more effective, situational leaders evaluate the circumstances and the people involved, weigh the options, and adjust their style accordingly. For example, let’s say you have a very simple task that needs to get done, and you have very experienced people to work with. You could chose, according to Dr. Paul Hersey, the author of Situational Leadership, one of four leadership styles: (1) Tell—provide specific instructions and closely supervise performance, (2) Sell—explain your decisions and provide opportunities for clarification, (3) Consult—share ideas and facilitate in making decisions, or (4) Delegate—turn over responsibility for decisions and implementation.
    The most effective style for this situation is number four—Delegate—because the workers know what they’re doing, they don’t need your input, and may feel insulted if you try to train them or micro-manage them. Life presents itself situationally as well. If you believe you have options, you can adjust how you behave based on the different situations. But you have to see—and believe—you have options.
    The problem is that a lot of people don’t think they have options. They believe that they have one specific style and one consistent, personality strategy for life. This belief shows itself in many forms, such as, “This is my story and I’m sticking to it,” “It’s my way or the highway,” “Accept me for who am,” and the ever present, “That’s just the way I am.” Most people believe that there’s one permanent “I” that doesn’t change—that can’t change—regardless of the situation. A client of mine, let’s call him George, felt that it was important to present the same face to everyone. He supervised eight people and thought that treating everyone “equally” was the best way to manage them. “I gotta be me,” was his mantra, and he wore it like a badge of honor.
    “I’m consistent,” he once told me. “I don’t flip-flop, and I don’t change my values for anyone.” He was under the misguided impression that never adapting his behavior was a sign of discipline, honor, and virtue. But of late it wasn’t working and he came to me for help. “You’re lazy,” I told him one day, to his surprise.
    “What do you mean?” he asked.
    “You’re lazy, first, because you expect everyone else to change instead of you, and second, because you haven’t learned to adapt to the people around you. Having only one style just isn’t effective.”
    George was a big sports fan. “For example,” I said, “a basketball player who can only dunk the ball, who has no jump shot or three pointer, is easy to guard against because he’s so predictable. One the other hand, in baseball, a player who’s learned to be a switch hitter is more effective because he can change his stance and adjust his swing depending on whether the pitcher is right or left handed.”
    A lot of people view their personality in the same way they view their name: inherited, beyond their control, and with them for life. Then there are others who have no problem changing their name. My wife Robyn, wanted to be different, so she changed the spelling of her name from “Robin” to “Robyn.” A small change? Perhaps. But to her it spoke volumes: she wasn’t a victim of circumstance; she believed she had options and had control over her life. “I’m this not that,” she told the world. How about “Sting,” “Madonna,” “Slash,” and “Prince?” How about all the authors with pen names and actors with stage names? The most effective and successful actors are the ones who adjust their actions to fit the situation. In a recent interview on the Today Show, Brian Williams answered Matt Lauer’s question about who would win Best Actor at the Academy Awards: “I think Sean Penn in Milk will win because he moved in and occupied the role. He became Harvey Milk.”
    Aren’t you an actor playing a part? Aren’t you adapting, like an actor, to your life script? You do it unconsciously 99% of the time. Imagine if you could do it consciously all the time. When an actor fails to adjust his acting style to the demands of the script he turns in an ineffective performance. He’s a victim of his limited range and lack of options. He’s responding to himself—usually to his fears and anxieties—rather than the script. You do the same thing when you limit your actions to your preferred strategy. Then your performance seems inauthentic, inappropriate, and ineffective.
    The Enneagram teaches how you limit your options and over-rely on one preferred strategy to the neglect of the other eight. It teaches that to live effective, creative lives means to be adaptable: when you know that you have options, and can freely, consciously create the best action for the situation. You allow each situation to determine your behavior, not your preferred strategy. You’re no longer a victim of circumstance; you’re a creator of your own life.
--Bob Tallon

Interview Part 3

(This is the third part of my interview with Italian Enneagram teacher Claudio Garibaldi. Parts 1and 2 appeared February 8 and 19.)

  

     Claudio: It is my opinion that in the Enneagram world many things are taken for granted, for example the theory about the subtypes. Moreover, it seems there is not research on the subject. Might you summarize your point of view about the subtypes?

Mario: I agree with you, there is Enneagram dogma that gets taken for granted, as there is with any system of thought or teaching. People fail to see that something that might apply in one environment or circumstance may not apply in another, or they may become so awed by how the majority of a teaching is so profound that they overlook the part that doesn’t ring true. We all have a tendency toward confirmation bias and disregard contradictory evidence when it threatens what we want to believe. We are also cowed by authority, even benevolent authority, and many are unwilling to question the “gurus.” Finally, since many students of the Enneagram are spiritual seekers who want to believe fantastic things, they are prone to do so even when those fantastic things contradict the evidence.
    Some years back I became troubled by what was being taught about the subtypes, initially because I was encountering so many people who were so confused on the topic, either in regard to their subtype or the theory in general. The fundamental concepts of the subtypes (which some people refer to as “instinctual variants”) were inspired by the teachings of Gurdjieff, who taught that there were three instinctive drives—self-preservation, social, and sexual—that influenced our unconscious behavior. Later, Enneagram teachers such as Naranjo and Oscar Ichazo talked about the combination of Ennea-type and instinct and came up with the idea of “subtypes.”
    The immediate problem with the theory is that humans, like other mammals, do not have three instincts, they have many instincts, though there is a tendency of many of them to be related in three broad areas.
    The second problem is that, when I first learned about them at least, the instincts were discussed as psychological phenomena. However, instincts are by definition rooted in biological phenomena; they are evolved and inherited responses to complex situations, rather than responses that develop because of psychological responses to early life circumstances. This is not to say that our psychology does not shape the way our instincts manifest, but they are clearly rooted in our biology. A squirrel has instincts, but a squirrel does not have psychological processes. Humans are more complicated than squirrels of course, but instincts are part of our animal selves, part of our biology.
    This tendency to see the instincts as psychological phenomena causes people to look for psychological reasons for biological behavior, and it is natural for the mind to confabulate in that situation. Therefore, people come up with all kinds of reasons for a behavior that is not rooted in reason. For example, I have listened to people who are clearly “self-preserving” subtype argue that they are a sexual subtype and rationalize it with excuses such as they prefer to eat dinner with one other person than eat alone or with a large group. When we start trying to use psychological explanations for biological phenomena we can convince ourselves of anything.
    For this reason, I disregard people’s explanations and watch their non-conscious behavior when working with the subtypes (or what I usually refer to as “instinctual biases”). I watch what they do when they are not doing some consciously directed activity; I listen to what they talk about when they have no specific topic to address; I pay attention to what attracts their attention. These are the things that point to the instinct while post hoc explanations typically lead one astray.