Interview with Mario Sikora: Understanding the Three Instinctual Biases in the Workplace
The interview below is the transcript of my session on The Enneagram Summit for Business and Teams, hosted by Michelle Joy, Certified Enneagram Teacher and Trainer. It has been edited for length and clarity. For more on the Summit, visit www.EnneagramSummits.com.
Michelle Joy (MJ): Welcome to the Enneagram Summit for Businesses and Teams! I’m your host, Michelle Joy, and today I’m delighted to have Mario Sikora with us. Mario is a leadership advisor and coach with over 25 years of experience in performance improvement, clear thinking, decision-making, and Enneagram personality styles. He’s the CEO of Awareness to Action International, a consulting company that serves clients across the globe. Mario, it’s a pleasure to have you here.
Mario Sikora (MS): Thanks for having me, Michelle. It’s a real pleasure.
MJ: Today, we’ll be discussing the three instinctual biases in the workplace, a framework you’ve honed through years of experience. How did you come across these instinctual biases, and what led you to emphasize them?
MS: These instinctual biases have been part of the Enneagram literature for some time—usually referred to as “instincts” or “subtypes,” but the way they were traditionally presented wasn’t scientifically up to date. I began studying the Enneagram in 1994, and by 1997, I was applying it in organizations. I noticed that while these “instincts” were mentioned, they weren’t given the attention they deserved—especially in the context of organizational behavior.
What really stood out to me was how some of the terms, like "sexual subtype," weren’t accurate or practical. The way instinctual behaviors were being categorized seemed limiting and outdated. Over time, I began to see that these instinctual biases influenced behavior far more than I originally understood, but in ways that were broader than the existing framework captured.
MJ: That makes a lot of sense. How did you begin to reshape this understanding of instinctual biases, particularly for use in the workplace?
MS: The shift began with a personal observation. One evening, I was listening to a conversation between my wife and her mother. Both of them are Enneagram Sevens, but they were discussing the challenge they had finding jeans. My wife, who I had identified as a “self-preservation” subtype, was focused on finding jeans that were comfortable, whereas my mother-in-law, who I thought of as a “sexual” subtype according to the existing descriptions, was concerned with finding jeans that were exciting and attention-grabbing. They were both Sevens, but had very different needs.
That conversation made me realize that the "sexual" subtype wasn’t necessarily about sexuality—it was about the need to be noticed or to display, which led me to think about the instinctual bias in terms of "transmitting"—an impulse to attract attention so one can “transmit” something to another person. It was a breakthrough moment that made me rethink how I categorized these biases in both personal and professional settings.
MJ: I love that story—it’s such a relatable way to explain how these biases operate. You’ve developed new terms for these biases to make them more accessible. Can you walk us through them?
MS: Sure. I use three terms: Preserving, Navigating, and Transmitting.
Preserving is focused on maintaining safety, structure, and resources. People with this bias are concerned with stability, comfort, and making sure things are safe and orderly.
Navigating is all about understanding group dynamics and social interactions—figuring out how people connect, how relationships work, and how to orient within a group.
Transmitting is focused on standing out, being noticed, and leaving a mark. This is about making an impact, expressing oneself, and driving change.
These instincts go beyond personality types; they reflect fundamental ways in which people interact with the world and prioritize their actions.
MJ: That’s fascinating. How do these instinctual biases manifest in the workplace? Could you give some examples? How about the way people would enter a room at a conference?
MS: Absolutely. Let’s imagine three people entering a room, each with a different instinctual bias.
Preservers will immediately focus on the practicalities—where to sit, how comfortable the room is, and how soon they can leave. They will dress as comfortably as the situation allows. They’ll likely focus on logistics and keeping everything stable and manageable.
Navigators will be scanning the room, noticing who is talking to whom, and figuring out the social dynamics. They will dress in a way that fits in—not underdressed, not overdressed. They want to understand how relationships are working in this environment.
Transmitters will scan quickly and then dive right in, initiating conversations, and making sure they stand out. They’ll likely dress in a way that attracts attention, and they’ll seem to dominate conversations because they’re naturally inclined to project themselves into the group.
In terms of specific roles in organizations, while there are no hard and fast rules and people of any profile can be successful in various roles, we often see Preservers in operations, finance, or roles that involve process and structure. They’re focused on keeping things running smoothly. Navigators often excel in HR, marketing, or organizational development because they understand how to manage relationships and group dynamics. Transmitters tend to be successful in sales, leadership, or roles requiring innovation and change, where making an impact is essential.
MJ: That’s so helpful. You mentioned earlier that conflict often arises from these different instinctual biases. How does that happen?
MS: Conflict in the workplace often stems from a clash of priorities, which are directly tied to these instinctual biases. Preservers prioritize stability and safety, so they might clash with Transmitters who want to push for change and innovation. Meanwhile, Navigators might struggle in environments where they don’t understand the group dynamics or feel left out of key decisions.
We do an exercise in our workshops where we divide people into groups based on their dominant instinctual bias and ask them to plan something simple—like an office party. It’s fascinating to watch because each group approaches the task in completely different ways. Preservers focus on budget and logistics, Navigators focus on who will be there and the group dynamics, while Transmitters think about how to make the party exciting and memorable.
This clash of perspectives on what is important to focus on and what is not can lead to frustration, but once people understand that it’s about different instinctual biases, they can depersonalize the conflict and see it as a difference in priorities, not a personal attack.
MJ: That’s a really practical way to understand conflict. How do leaders use this framework effectively in their organizations?
MS: Leaders can use this framework as a template for understanding how their teams function. Every organization has tasks that fall into the preserving, navigating, and transmitting categories. By recognizing the instinctual biases of their team members, leaders can assign tasks in a way that leverages their strengths.
For instance, someone with a strong preserving bias might excel in managing operations, where attention to detail is crucial. A transmitter might be more effective in a role that requires selling new ideas or leading innovation. The key is to ensure that all three biases are represented on a team so that the organization is balanced. You may not have the luxury of ensuring that you have people of each bias on the team, and people shouldn’t be limited to or forced to focus on activities related to their bias, but being aware of the patterns helps to manage the groups activities much more effectively.
MJ: That makes perfect sense. Could you also explain the concept of the “zone of indifference” and how it relates to individual development?
MS: Sure. The "zone of indifference" refers to the area we naturally tend to neglect or avoid. For example, preservers are often indifferent to transmitting, meaning they might struggle with self-promotion or being noticed. Navigators, on the other hand, might avoid preserving activities—they aren’t focused on stability or process. Transmitters often overlook group dynamics.
For individual development, it’s important to identify specific behaviors in your zone of indifference that are critical for success. A preserver might need to work on promoting themselves, while a transmitter might need to improve their ability to navigate group politics. The goal isn’t to become perfectly balanced in all areas but to become “requisitely good” in the areas that are necessary for professional success.
MJ: That’s a great point—it makes development more targeted and practical. I remember you also mentioned that organizations themselves can have dominant instinctual biases. Could you elaborate on that?
MS: Yes, organizations can have instinctual biases, just like individuals. For instance, finance and manufacturing industries often have preserving cultures and they focus on stability, safety, and risk management. In contrast, creative industries or startups may have transmitting cultures, prioritizing innovation and making an impact.
Recognizing an organization’s dominant instinctual bias helps leaders understand where their organization might be lacking. If an organization is overly focused on preserving, they might resist necessary changes or miss growth opportunities. By acknowledging this, leaders can work to balance the organization by encouraging behaviors related to the other instinctual domains that might be otherwise underserved.
MJ: That’s incredibly insightful, especially for business leaders looking to understand their organizational culture. Before we close, could you share how people can learn more from you and continue to explore these ideas?
MS: Certainly. For a deeper dive, people can sign up for our certification program at www.ATACertification.com or listen to the Awareness to Action Enneagram podcast.
MJ: That’s a fantastic resource! Thank you so much, Mario, for sharing your knowledge today. I’ve gained a lot of insight, and I’m sure our listeners have too.
MS: Thank you, Michelle. It’s been a pleasure.
To explore more about Mario Sikora’s work, visit mariolinks.com for resources and social links.
Key Takeaways:
Instinctual Biases in Conflict: Differences in instinctual biases can create clashes in priorities, leading to conflict in the workplace. Recognizing these biases can help depersonalize disagreements.
Instinctual Biases in Organizational Culture: Just as individuals have dominant biases, so do organizations. Leaders can use this insight to identify potential gaps and foster a more balanced team culture.
Targeted Personal Development: By focusing on specific behaviors in the "zone of indifference," individuals can grow in areas they tend to neglect, improving both personal and professional outcomes.