Instincts and coaching
By Mario Sikora
Translation Elena Carlota Fernández
It's pretty easy to see how
valuable the Enneagram can be
to the coach. When I began
working with entrepreneurs
about 15 years ago, the
Enneagram quickly demonstrated
its value in increasing the level of
commitment - I was soon able to
understand the client's point of
view, identify attitudes and
behaviors
potentially problematic and find
solutions
structural in a language that
appealed to the person of the
client in question in front of me,
rather than using a method
based on a generalized
approach.
The ways in which my own
enneatype enhanced and
hindered my abilities as a coach
also quickly became obvious to
me. As a type eight coach, my
clients in the corporate world
often found resonance with my
direct approach and my
emphasis on inciting action and
achieving results, but I
sometimes found myself running
after the solution without having
given the clients the time they
needed to figure out the solution
on their own with the help of a
little gentle guidance from me.
When I started training
other coaches, I could see how
their enneatype influenced them.
and I started to
help them develop
strategies to get
advantages of the virtues of their
enneatypes while transcending
their obstacles or weaknesses.
A few years ago I began to
notice the importance of instincts
in coaching – both for the client
and the coach and I began to
pay more attention to them in
my work. In this article I would
like to briefly introduce some
ways in which a coach can use
knowledge of instincts to
enhance their skills as a coach. I
will expand on this topic in my
presentation for the IEA
Conference in San Francisco next
summer. As I am an executive
coach, my focus is on the
corporate environment, although
I believe the basic ideas are also
relevant to other types of
coaching.
First of all, I want to
dedicate a few words to clarify
basic concepts: the readers of
this publication are already
probably
familiar with the term subtypes –
the three variants of each
enneatype rooted in instinct,
1
commonly called “self-
preservation,” “social,” and
“sexual.” So, depending on the
instinct
dominant and enneatype, the
person can be a self-preservation
One, a social One, or a sexual
One, a self-preservation Two,
etc., in total 27 variations of
types combined with instincts.
Don Riso and Russ Hudson, with
the publication of their book The
Wisdom of the Enneagram,
astutely began to treat instincts
as independent factors. That is,
they did not focus instincts solely
in relation to the Enneagram;
They observed the instinctive
variants as worthy of study in
their own right. Although I think
there were those who did it
before, Riso and Hudson put
special emphasis on it, which I
consider important.
In this article I will treat
instincts in this way, focusing on
behaviors that are rooted in the
dominant instinct, rather than
belonging to a specific subtype.
That is, I will focus on behaviors
that tend to be consistent for all
self-preservation subtypes, all
social and all sexual, no matter
what type they are.
I have some objections to
the way instincts are typically
taught. The first is about the
idea that there are three, and
only three, instincts.
The concept of instincts, in
biology literature, is a rather
murky topic. There are many
definitions of instinct, which tend
to place it somewhere between
an automatic reflex and other
much more malleable behaviors.
1
However, it is generally agreed
that instincts are very specific
and humans, like other
mammals, have many specific
instincts rather than the three
major instincts as commonly
described in the Enneagram
literature. 2 That said, based on
observation, it seems clear that
our instincts correspond
approximately three large groups
or domains. This may be a subtle
distinction, but it is useful in
explaining the variations found
among people of the same
dominant instinctive tendency (
bias ) (my preferred term for
these three categories). For
example, “nest-building and
rearing” and resource
conservation seem to be at the
forefront of what is commonly
called the “self-preservation
instinct,” but within this realm,
different “self-preservation” will
focus on different behaviors.
Some will focus on their
home (nest) more than others;
some will focus on resource
storage more than others; some
will focus on their physical well-
being more than others, etc…
2
These topics are important to
everyone in self-preservation,
but each person will express it in
their own way, within the same
domain.
Which brings us to a
second objection: instincts must
be seen first of all as biological
issues, rather than as
psychological issues. This does
not mean that the expression of
our instincts is not influenced
by factors
psychological, cultural or
environmental, but the core of
instincts resides in unalterable
and hereditary roots. Instincts
are reactions to complex stimuli
that have nothing to do with
thought. It is important to
understand this well, because
some people often collude and
try to use reason to explain
instinctive behaviors. They may
say, for example, that they dress
lavishly (usually an indicator of
sexual subtype) for, say,
business reasons, but that they
are really
self-preservation, or they explain
their desire to hoard (generally
an indicator of a self-
preservation subtype) by alluding
to a childhood of deprivation.
While these environmental
factors can sometimes influence
a particular instinct-related
behavior, in my experience such
apparent exaggerations are
actually an indication that the
person has misidentified their
dominant instinct. Our inability to
see instincts as biological while
insisting on environmental or
psychological explanations to
explain our instinct-related
behavior can blind us to the
dominance of the behaviors and
render us unable to appreciate
the enormous impact they have
on our lives.
Lastly, I'm a little
concerned about the names of
the dominant instincts, as they
are commonly used. The biggest
problem I see is with the term
“sexual subtype”: details aside,
the word “sexual” is impossible
to use in the corporate
environment; To do so is to get
into trouble. The alternative
term, “intimate” (one to one)
clouds the concept rather than
clarifying it. At the heart of this
instinctive variant is the image of
good reproductive health and the
impulse to transmit something of
ourselves to others, be it our
genes, our ideas, or our
creations. People with this
instinctive variant tend to be
sociable and charming, and to
combine a flattering and
seductive quality with a tendency
to tell stories about themselves
(that is, to convey). They like
intensity in their relationships,
but emphasizing intimate,
comfortable one-on-one
3
conversations and compromises
often causes self-preservation
types (who also often focus on
that “one-on-one”). you") label
themselves as "intimate" and
lose the most important
elements of the instinctive
variant.
When working with clients, I
refer to the three instinctive
variants as “preservation,”
“navigation,” and “transmission,”
3
but for this article, I use the
standard terminology. Also for
ease of use, in this article I use
the term “types” when I refer to
people with a particular
instinctive variant, such as “social
types.” Please keep in mind the
difference between this meaning
and that of “enea – types”.
Now that these few
theoretical objections have been
clarified, let's move on to
practical issues.
Instincts and the client
As an executive coach, my
task is very clear: to help my
client take advantage of their
strengths and transcend their
weaknesses. Of course, this
simple statement is more
complicated than it seems, and I
never know what the client's
specific needs will be – it could
be professional guidance,
modification of the
behavior, helping in a period of
transition, or simply acting as an
impartial listener – but the truth
is that helping clients take
advantage of their talents and
mitigate their weaknesses is
what I get paid to do.
Coming to an
understanding of instinctual
variants is quite useful because,
like enneatypes, they help us
quickly identify common patterns
of strengths and weaknesses.
Combining the two in a coaching
program creates a stronger
understanding of the terrain in
which the client operates.
We will start with the self-
preservation (AC) types. Their
strengths tend to include good
organizational skills, attention to
detail, focus on process and
procedure, and tend to be more
cautious and conservative (a
strength in many jobs). They are
very given to detecting problems
and obstacles more clearly than
others. On the negative side, this
same caution can hold them
back, and self-preservers often
need coaching to dare to be
more risk-taking, without
ignoring their need for security.
This can happen even with
people who have enneatypes.
typically
considered aggressive or risky.
For example, AC Threes, Eights
and Sevens often fight more
than most over choosing their
4
next job, if it were something
risky.
Additionally, ACs tend to
ignore what I understand to be
the “sizzle” of corporate life – the
ability to stand out from the
crowd, promote yourself and
your team, and achieve well-
deserved recognition for your
achievements. So, they often
need help with career
management – promoting
themselves in a way that doesn't
feel artificial, standing out in
meetings, etc.
Social types (SOC.)
generally have a different set of
strengths and weaknesses. They
are typically good
establishing social connections
and interpersonal dynamics
required for life in companies or
organizations. They are not
necessarily extraverted, but they
often like to be among people
and want to know more about
others. On the other hand, they
may become overly interested in
gossip and the political intrigue
of the organization. They may be
aware of their status or hierarchy
and fall into the trap of
unnecessarily comparing
themselves to others.
Additionally, they generally pay
little attention to details, and
tend to be disinterested in the
process and procedures. Even
people with enneatypes typically
associated with attention to
detail may struggle in this area.
For example, social Ones
and Sixes are not as detail-
oriented as ACs and sexuals of
the same enneatype. Socials can
also be ambivalent about self-
promotion. They may feel that
they are doing it clumsily, and
thus fall into the pattern of trying
to avoid it, but sometimes
overcompensating for it. and
exaggerating it. They often need
guidance to understand that it is
okay (in fact necessary) to
promote themselves and carry
out the impulse to be seen. They
can learn to do it consciously in
effective and appropriate ways,
rather than bouncing back and
forth, overdoing it or underdoing
it.
Sexual (SX) types are
generally good at sizzling that
ACs are not. They tend to be
charismatic and extroverted.
They can be inspired people who
excite people around a common
cause. They can focus their
attention on a person in short
but intense bursts, finding just
the right word to say and making
the person feel like they are the
only one in the room. On the
other hand, they can dominate
conversations and relationships.
Additionally, they often do not
show aptitude for the subtle
5
interpersonal dynamics that
socials are good at, and they
often do not realize how they are
truly perceived by others. They
are not usually good listeners,
although they usually disagree
with this assessment. They often
need coaching to learn to leave
space for others, not dominate
interactions with others, and to
also learn to receive messages as
well as transmit them.
Sexuals can often display a
shadow scarcity mentality,
believing that they never have
enough of the things that are
important to them. They may
want more money, more
prestige, more attention... Sexual
people usually need coaching to
learn to express their desires
without appearing to take the
law into their own hands.
Coaches could view
themselves as continuous
learners, always seeking to
improve their skills while
increasing their ability to model
the behaviors and attitudes they
expect from their clients.
However, it is important to look
at yourself as your own client
and work on the gut issues
described above as they apply to
you. You should ensure that you
take full advantage of your
strengths while working to
reduce your weaknesses.
Below are some issues you
should be aware of during your
coaching. Again this is just a
brief introduction to a much
broader topic.
Coaches for whom the
instinctive variant of self-
preservation is dominant are
generally good at training clients
in the different tasks in which
they usually excel: the
fundamentals of work in
companies. These include
organizational and time
management tasks, establishing
processes and procedures, and
prioritizing tasks. They are
typically good at finding potential
problems and devising methods
to solve them.
AC Coaches should
ensure that they are addressing
their own fundamental security
needs and use these to build a
solid business foundation for
their coaching practice - - putting
marketing and administrative
structures in place that ensure a
comfortable way to make a
living. At the same time, they
need to ensure that they do not
view their customer primarily as
a source of income. One of the
biggest differences between
coaching and therapy is that a
coaching program tends to have
a much shorter life than therapy.
The need for security can lead
AC coaches to prolong the
6
commitment longer than
necessary, not wanting to miss a
source of income. Ironically, this
need to maintain clients actually
prevents the AC coach from
obtaining the security he seeks,
hindering him from finding new
clients and the smooth
development of his practice.
When the client finally realizes
that the coaching is failing to
show results, they decide to end
the engagement. Then, the
coach could be left without a job,
having failed to gain a good
portfolio of clients.
Coaches for whom the
social instinct is dominant are
generally good at training clients
to be more effective in
networking and developing
interpersonal skills, so important
in business life. They often
understand company policies
very well and can help their
clients become better navigators
of these sometimes treacherous
waters.
SOC (social) coaches
should make sure they are
meeting their social needs
outside of the realm of coaching.
It is tempting to become friends
with clients and, although the
commitment of coaching is
different from that of therapy,
good ethical practice demands
that the coach maintain a
professional distance from his
client. The SOC coach must also
ensure that the coaching session
does not revolve around a
conversation with no final
resolution. Each coaching session
should have an identifiable
beginning, middle and end. Each
session should conclude with the
creation of an action plan and
those action plans should be
followed up during the next
meeting.
Since social workers are
generally not very good at
administrative and organizational
issues, they should really focus
on this part of their practice. Well
organized notes in accessible
formats, good record keeping,
etc. They are fundamental tools
for the proper development of
the practice.
Finally, coaches with a
dominant sexual instinct are
often good at helping clients
build confidence in their role and
presentation. They are naturally
good at making the client feel
listened to, valued and especially
engaged from the beginning.
They understand the value of
techniques of making themselves
seen and heard in an
organization or company, and
are often good at helping clients
stand out from the crowd.
Sex coaches need to
ensure that their own need to be
7
seen and heard does not intrude
on their role as a good coach.
One of the qualities of a good
coach is the ability to be
transparent and disappear, to
keep the focus on the client and
only appear when necessary.
The best coaches take a Socratic
approach, testing, questioning
and challenging assumptions,
leaving the client to come to the
right conclusions on their own.
Of course, the coach must
intercede and guide when
necessary, so that there is
adequate progress and rhythm in
the session, and they must offer
the knowledge acquired from
their experience, but in general it
is better to keep the focus on the
client. Sex coaches need to be
careful that they are not
introducing a philosophical,
spiritual or political agenda to
their clients.
As SXs may have
weaknesses in organizational
dynamics, they need to ensure
they are in tune with their
client's organizational policy and
culture. They need to see the
individual as part of a larger
system, and understand the
effect of this system on the
individual's life.
Of course there is much
more to say on this topic, but I
hope this article sparks some
thought and reflection.
Combining instincts and
enneatype creates a much
stronger framework for coaching
than focusing on Enneatypes
alone. Spending some time
focusing on instincts as an
independent factor gives us
many insights to improve your
practice as coaches, seeing and
transcending our own
weaknesses and understanding
our clients on a much deeper
level.
Footnotes
1 See, for example, Mark S.
Blumberg's “ Basic Instinct: The
Genesis of Behavior ”
2 I discuss this topic more
extensively in the article “ Notes
and Melody, Part 3 ” which can
be found at
http://www.awarenesstoaction.c
om/downloads/notes_melody_3.
pdf .
3 The choice of these
terms is described in the article
“The Instincts: Taking a Broader
Point of View” on my website:
http://www.awarenesstoaction.c
om/downloads/the_instincts.pdf .
Mario Sikora can be contacted
for comment at
8
Mario@awarenesstoaction.com