Don't Trust Enneagram Tests... Even Ours!
A confident-looking and definitive assessment can do a lot of harm.
It happened again…
A client (let’s call him “Jon”) participating in an upcoming team-building session took an impressive-looking Enneagram-type assessment that told him with no uncertainty that he was an Eight. He received a massive report filled with details and recommendations for his type.
Jon was thrilled. The assessment was easy to use, the report he received was beautifully designed and it told him his type, wing, subtype, etc. He couldn’t believe how accurate it was and he quickly embraced his newly discovered identity as an Eight, telling his family and coworkers how amazing this Enneagram system was.
The problem is that Jon isn’t an Eight.
The other eleven participants in the program went through a different process. They took an online assessment (developed by us at Awareness to Action) that gave them scores related to each personality style but clearly stated that the Enneagram is a very difficult model to measure by self-report assessments and should only be viewed as a starting point in the discovery process. It also provided descriptions of all the types, not just the top score. Most importantly, it was followed up with a one-on-one interview to discuss and interpret the results. (Unfortunately, Jon, so convinced of the accuracy of his test results, declined to participate in the assessment interview process. )
The interviews showed that the results of 4 out of the 11 people scored highest in a type that was not the type they ultimately identified with. This, of course, is not an encouraging testimonial for the accuracy of our assessment, but it is in line with other assessments we have experimented with over the years. It illustrates an important point: despite the impressive psychometric claims made by some, Enneagram tests simply aren’t very dependable.* Results from any online assessment should always be framed as provisional and a step in a process of self-discovery, not a definitive determination of a person’s Enneagram type.
In an ideal world, I would not use an online Enneagram-type assessment because even the best are highly problematic. For example:
The Enneagram is a model with a high number of variables being assessed, and psychometric assessment gets more and more difficult as the number of variables increases.
Culture, limited self-awareness, an unwillingness to expose oneself, indifference, and a variety of other factors can cause “user error” that distorts the results of an assessment.
The Enneagram is a far more nuanced system than it appears to be. The instinctual bias dramatically influences the expression of the type strategy, for example, as do issues such as culture, family of origin, career choices, etc.
Stereotypes abound and are often the foundation of the questions in the assessments and questions often reflect stereotypes rather than reality.
Some creators of assessments are not actual practitioners—their knowledge of the Enneagram comes through books, videos, and (maybe) workshops, but they have never truly digested the material in the crucible of application with real people in the real world over extended times. They often don’t understand why a Preserving Seven can be confused with a One, a Transmitting Nine with a Three, a Transmitting Five with a Seven, a Navigating Four with a Nine, etc. Alternately, their business may be delivering one-off workshops where they go into an organization and present to a group that is initially wowed by the material but then starts to doubt the accuracy or utility of the content after the presenter leaves. This means that the developers don’t understand what the true key factors are in identifying type or what the best advice for growth really is, especially in the business world.
Confirmation bias is a powerful force. Confirmation bias is the tendency to see what we expect to see. If people receive an impressive-looking report that catalogs 20 characteristics describing them, they will find enough evidence in their common behaviors to justify their belief that the description is accurate. From that point on, they will see evidence of those characteristics while not seeing evidence that would point to a different type profile.
Automation bias, the tendency to trust computer assessments rather than our own judgment, is a real phenomenon. I have seen people spend two days in an Enneagram workshop and conclude (accurately, in my view) that they are a particular type but then change their minds when an assessment tells them something else.
So why do I use an assessment and why did we create one? When possible, I don’t give my clients an assessment, preferring live interviews and evaluating people over time. But clients often want an online assessment, and if I don’t give them one they will take one that convinces them they are the wrong type and then overwhelm them with a report that cements that wrong assessment into the psyche of the client. At least we can say in our assessment as explicitly as possible that the results are provisional, dependent on further explanation and—preferably—a live interview, and we can avoid giving them a report that reinforces a potential definitive mistyping.
When I do a workshop or teambuilding program using the Enneagram, I always reinforce over and over that our assessments should be provisional and we should hold them lightly, that we can get great value out of understanding the Enneagram types while still being willing to say, “I thought I was a Three, but see that I’m a Five.” Smart people understand that humans are complex and may not be what they appear at first.
When assessments are made definitively, a wrong assessment can undermine the whole process. In the example of Jon’s team, there were two genuine Eights on the team who saw immediately (based on years of working with Jon) that their personalities were nothing alike. After the workshop, they called the whole process into doubt because of these seeming contradictions that couldn’t be explained without confronting Jon about the accuracy of his assessment (which I would never do in a group setting).
Additionally, Jon, who continues to love the Enneagram and refers to his type in public at any opportunity, is a walking fount of cognitive dissonance that makes others look askance at the Enneagram.
I understand the desire for a definitive-seeming assessment and a robust report with lots of (apparently) helpful and targeted advice. Such tools are convincing to potential clients (at least initially) and fill the trainer with confidence, especially when they are just starting out as a professional user of the Enneagram. The apparent insights of others distilled into well-produced tools act as a comforting substitute until the coach/trainer (who can’t see the flaws in the content they are relying on for their work) develops experience of their own.
However, there are consequences for misleading clients by giving them a convincing report or developmental guidance that is not relevant to them. You not only fail to actually help them, you undermine them by having them work on things that are not helpful and distorting their perception of themselves.
My advice when it comes to assessment is this:
First, get experience with the Enneagram in the real world before you try to assess anyone in a professional engagement. If you are going to help clients find their type, do so through conversation over time and overcommunicate the fact that any assessment is provisional and may change over time as new information arises.
If you are going to use an assessment, use one that acknowledges the provisional and iterative nature of identifying type. Give the client, at least initially, a report that encourages them to look at all the types and to make up their own mind, ideally in conjunction with an interview with someone who understands the system.
The lure of confident and definitive assessment is hard to resist. Early in my career I felt like I had to find a client’s type quickly and I had to be right; anything else would make me lose credibility. This made it difficult to change my mind when I started to suspect I may have mistyped them, and confirmation bias allowed me to continue in my inaccuracy. The reality is that a client will feel more respected and seen if we acknowledge that assessment isn’t easy and we don’t feel the need to rush to a conclusion.
Slow and provisional assessment is far more professional than the certainty I felt I had to display.
I encourage you to learn from my mistakes and do better than I did.
Don’t trust Enneagram-type assessments.
*Without getting into the weeds of psychometrics, there is a big difference between “validity” (which has to do with accuracy) and “repeatability” and “reliability” (which have to do with consistency). One can consistently get the same wrong answer but claim high percentages of repeatability and reliability.)