Previous month:
September 2013
Next month:
November 2013

October 2013

The Enneagram and Motivational Maps

I sometimes get asked what is the connection between the Enneagram and Motivational Maps? This is a great question since the Enneagram is one of the three foundation blocks on which I constructed Motivational Maps. Before answering, then, the question directly, let me detour to explain to those who have never heard of the Enneagram what it is and what it does.

Basically, the Enneagram (a word of Greek origin meaning ‘nine points’) is a personality profiling tool. It is in my view the best personality tool available by far; it is quite different from the others, like Myers-Briggs, which categorize people into groups of four and sixteen; there are nine basic types of person, divided into three triads of three, and you can only be one type. What is so powerful about the Enneagram is that it describes what the fundamental motivator of each type is – what they are at root, and most often, looking for in life; and with this goes the predominant ‘vice’, or problem, that besets each number and which, if they are to grow, they need to overcome.

Different writers call the numbers by different names, so the names of each number are not standard. Webb, for example, calls a 1, The Perfectionist, whereas Hurley calls 1s The Achievers; the key thing is the number.
 
Thus, the first thing that the Enneagram has in common with Maps is the number 9: there are nine personality types and nine motivators at work. That there are nine motivators at work was discovered by follow-on research validating Edgar Schein’s Career Anchors model. Schein suggested that there were eight career drivers; research in Israel validated his model, but amended it to nine drivers: “The construct validity of Schein's career anchors orientation inventory” (Nira Danziger, Dalia Rachman-Moore,  Rony Valency, Rishon Lezion). That there are nine personality goes back to the origins of the Enneagram and its oral tradition, which is at least two thousand years old. It’s difficult to argue with the validity of something that has been road-tested for so long; and in the Twentieth Century leading thinkers and psychologists such as Ouspensky, Ichazo, Naranjo have added their weight to its relevance and validity. This was a great encouragement to me to proceed with the Map model.

Second, the nine Enneagram types are classified in three triads of three. There are three  types of personality that are affect or relational orientated (2, 3 and 4), three types that are theory or thinking orientated (5, 6 and 7), and three types that are effect or doing orientated (8, 9 and 1).This corresponds to the three primary modes of perception: feeling with the heart, thinking with the head, and knowing with the gut (as in gut-instinct, which obviously is involved in decisive actions and decisions). In looking at the motivational drivers I realized that the same division applied to them: that there were three motivators that were clearly relationship driven: security, belonging and recognition That three motivators were theory or thinking driven: control, money and expertise. And finally that three motivators were more instinctual: creativity, autonomy and purpose. Thus, this Enneagram model of the three triads exactly fitted the nine motivators.

And this is important: there is an underlying question for each of the three triads that applies to the maps equally as to the Enneagram. Namely, the relationship triad is asking: Am I lovable? The Theory triad is asking: Am I capable? And the instinctual triad is asking: Am I important? These three questions underpin our existence; they are ‘anxiety’ questions for us all on a motivational and a personality level. What Maps and the Enneagram teach us is that we have strengths, but also weaknesses, including blind spots, and unless these are addressed they are going to trip us up in the long run.

Finally, it needs to be said that the numbers of the Enneagram do not provide an exact correlation with the Map motivators and this is for a very good reason: motivation is only partially derived from our personalities. There is, if you will, the given of personality that forms, in Enneagram terms, within the first five years of life. That supplies some 20 or 30% of our motivational profile; but the other 70-80% is down to two other core factors: our self-concept and our expectations. In simple words, the former are our beliefs about our self, and the latter are our beliefs about future outcomes. In short, our beliefs inwardly and outwardly directed affect some 70% or so of our motivation at any given moment, and our beliefs are variables, which means they can change, and so can our motivation.

Both tools then are superb but they measure different things. In an ideal world we would be looking at and studying both. The Enneagram is far more complex than the Motivational Map and in one important sense is much less relevant to the world of work: it is uncovering personality at the deepest level and inviting one to go on a serious spiritual journey of growth. That is admirable, but have businesses got time for the full monty of personal development? The Map, by contrast, addresses the immediate issue of energy and its direction; plus it gives ways for individuals, teams and organizations to increase that energy and to link it in to performance. The Maps, then, are about personal development, too, but scaled down to a level where business can function and benefit. Ultimately, it is a question of choice and I certainly recommend Enneagram studies to everyone.


     
I sometimes get asked what is the connection between the Enneagram and Motivational Maps? This is a great question since the Enneagram is one of the three foundation blocks on which I constructed Motivational Maps. Before answering, then, the question directly, let me detour to explain to those who have never heard of the Enneagram what it is and what it does.

Basically, the Enneagram (a word of Greek origin meaning ‘nine points’) is a personality profiling tool. It is in my view the best personality tool available by far; it is quite different from the others, like Myers-Briggs, which categorize people into groups of four and sixteen; there are nine basic types of person, divided into three triads of three, and you can only be one type. What is so powerful about the Enneagram is that it describes what the fundamental motivator of each type is – what they are at root, and most often, looking for in life; and with this goes the predominant ‘vice’, or problem, that besets each number and which, if they are to grow, they need to overcome.

Different writers call the numbers by different names, so the names of each number are not standard. Webb, for example, calls a 1, The Perfectionist, whereas Hurley calls 1s The Achievers; the key thing is the number.
 
Thus, the first thing that the Enneagram has in common with Maps is the number 9: there are nine personality types and nine motivators at work. That there are nine motivators at work was discovered by follow-on research validating Edgar Schein’s Career Anchors model. Schein suggested that there were eight career drivers; research in Israel validated his model, but amended it to nine drivers: “The construct validity of Schein's career anchors orientation inventory” (Nira Danziger, Dalia Rachman-Moore,  Rony Valency, Rishon Lezion). That there are nine personality goes back to the origins of the Enneagram and its oral tradition, which is at least two thousand years old. It’s difficult to argue with the validity of something that has been road-tested for so long; and in the Twentieth Century leading thinkers and psychologists such as Ouspensky, Ichazo, Naranjo have added their weight to its relevance and validity. This was a great encouragement to me to proceed with the Map model.

Second, the nine Enneagram types are classified in three triads of three. There are three  types of personality that are affect or relational orientated (2, 3 and 4), three types that are theory or thinking orientated (5, 6 and 7), and three types that are effect or doing orientated (8, 9 and 1).This corresponds to the three primary modes of perception: feeling with the heart, thinking with the head, and knowing with the gut (as in gut-instinct, which obviously is involved in decisive actions and decisions). In looking at the motivational drivers I realized that the same division applied to them: that there were three motivators that were clearly relationship driven: security, belonging and recognition That three motivators were theory or thinking driven: control, money and expertise. And finally that three motivators were more instinctual: creativity, autonomy and purpose. Thus, this Enneagram model of the three triads exactly fitted the nine motivators.

And this is important: there is an underlying question for each of the three triads that applies to the maps equally as to the Enneagram. Namely, the relationship triad is asking: Am I lovable? The Theory triad is asking: Am I capable? And the instinctual triad is asking: Am I important? These three questions underpin our existence; they are ‘anxiety’ questions for us all on a motivational and a personality level. What Maps and the Enneagram teach us is that we have strengths, but also weaknesses, including blind spots, and unless these are addressed they are going to trip us up in the long run.

Finally, it needs to be said that the numbers of the Enneagram do not provide an exact correlation with the Map motivators and this is for a very good reason: motivation is only partially derived from our personalities. There is, if you will, the given of personality that forms, in Enneagram terms, within the first five years of life. That supplies some 20 or 30% of our motivational profile; but the other 70-80% is down to two other core factors: our self-concept and our expectations. In simple words, the former are our beliefs about our self, and the latter are our beliefs about future outcomes. In short, our beliefs inwardly and outwardly directed affect some 70% or so of our motivation at any given moment, and our beliefs are variables, which means they can change, and so can our motivation.

Both tools then are superb but they measure different things. In an ideal world we would be looking at and studying both. The Enneagram is far more complex than the Motivational Map and in one important sense is much less relevant to the world of work: it is uncovering personality at the deepest level and inviting one to go on a serious spiritual journey of growth. That is admirable, but have businesses got time for the full monty of personal development? The Map, by contrast, addresses the immediate issue of energy and its direction; plus it gives ways for individuals, teams and organizations to increase that energy and to link it in to performance. The Maps, then, are about personal development, too, but scaled down to a level where business can function and benefit. Ultimately, it is a question of choice and I certainly recommend Enneagram studies to everyone.


    

Introducing Motivational Maps to Staff

Motivational Maps  is a very flexible product and its many practitioners have their own various ways of introducing it to their clients and the staff. But is there a best way or a preferable way? I think the answer is yes, although I freely concede that I myself have not been consistent in how I introduce it, if only because the client is always king, and therefore one must take cognizance of their requirements and their superior knowledge of their staff.


That said, what is the best way to introduce Motivational Maps  to staff? The first thing to realize is Motivational Maps  is a bottom-up tool: it works by virtue of management (or senior management) realizing that they have to ‘get in the shoes’, get to understand their staff at a deeper level and thus do things for them that have not been done heretofore. This is an important point, for the opposite of this is a top-down approach: which is tantamount to saying, We are going to motivate you whether you will or not – you will be motivated! That cannot work – people will comply as a matter of job security, but it will not generate real motivation.


This leads to a second point: true motivation is always self-motivation, and so management has to understand that motivation cannot be compelled (any more than love can be compelled; in fact love is not love which is forced). Management, indeed, can only create the right environment, the favorable conditions, the appropriate sweeteners that may enable motivation to flourish in the individual. But here is a numbers’ game; for if you do create those conditions most people become motivated, and those few who don’t never would be – and that too is valuable information about your organization and their place in it.


Given, then, that management have bought into the concept of Motivational Maps, the question becomes how best to implement a programme? And the key issue here is introducing the staff to Motivational Maps via a qualified or trained practitioner. This is because it is highly likely that if only management introduce it, they will either fail to grasp what’s in it for the staff or simply will make it sound just like any other ‘new’ management imitative. In short, it will sound just like another feather in the cap of the manager’s career aspirations: it’s all about the management and the manager, and really divorced from the interests of the staff.


Thus it is imperative that some time is given to allow a proper presentation of Motivational Maps to staff with a focus on the benefits to them. And these benefits are massive and considerable. When they ‘get’ just how important motivation is on their lives at work and beyond their enthusiasm really does start sparking.


Often the problem is releasing staff at the same time as the ‘decks’ have to be manned. This, however, should not be allowed to be an excuse. The practitioner needs to argue for shifts or relays of staff in which a group or team can be addressed for at least 30 minutes and preferably an hour. Or technologies like webinars (even a recording is better than nothing) can be used, and in this way they can get a chance to listen and to ask questions.


3 Business Lessons I learnt from Cancer

Some of you may remember the story of Noah’s Ark. Noah was building an ark and while he did so people were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage. Then, one day, he entered the Ark, battened down the hatches and it started to rain. It rained for another 150 days and when Noah finally unbattened the hatches and stepped out again into the world, it was a completely different world that he stepped into. The old world had gone and could never return; whatever was to happen now would be new.

That is exactly what happened to me. There was this old world that I was part of; then, I had two malignant tumours in my small intestine, went into hospital for 3 months (my Ark, Ward 17!), had two major operations, nearly died, but emerged into the land of the living, the new world, in late October 2011, about 2 years ago. And I would argue that this experience happens to everyone who has a serious illness: there is before the event and there is after the event. Two different worlds that never meet. It’s not only, of course, just those who are privileged to be seriously ill! Those, too, who mind some loved one who is seriously ill; and those who have lost someone extremely dear to them. For all of us there is before and after the Flood.

But these experiences do provide us with opportunities to think about life and its meaning, and I think if we are sensible, we can learn something from it. I certainly did. What I learnt personally I have discussed elsewhere, but what did I learn from a business perspective? What did my cancer teach me about my business? Has it made a difference? The answers are ‘lots’ and ‘yes’!

Three big lessons emerged for me from my illness. The first, as I lay there, was the realization that if I died my business would fold. In other I realized that I had not any succession plan in place and furthermore that I had not begun my business with the end in mind. On the contrary, I had run the business as a life style choice and when people asked me when I intended to retire I had replied, in all seriousness, ‘Never’. Somehow I thought that having been in business for 18 years that I could just carry on indefinitely. Wow! This illness certainly brought that assumption into sharp relief.

Since escaping hospital we now have 3 new directors on our Board with a CEO-designate, a new vision and a new 5 year plan. Is that making a difference? You bet.

Second, I also realized that although I had created a great product, the Motivational Map, I hadn’t productized enough. That as Peter Drucker said, only two things make money for a business: marketing and innovation, all else is a cost. The innovation of our product needed to be taken to a new level.

Since escaping hospital we now have Motivational Maps versions 2.0 and more recently version 2.1; these are massive upgrades on the original. We have also had the Map translated into 5 European languages. Plus we have detailed plans for a Recruitment Map, a superior Organizational Map, and more beside. Is that making a difference? You bet.

Finally, I realized the full force of the Michael Gerber ‘e-myth’ philosophy. I had spent 18 years being a fabulous trainer, coach and mentor and I liked doing it. But I was spending too much time working ‘in’ and not ‘on’ the business. Put another way, I was too operational and not strategic enough. And this meant not only insufficient attention being paid to the marketing, but also not enough was being spent on the productization, the innovation stuff, on which the long-term security rested.

Since escaping hospital we now have made the decision to retire me from training, coaching and mentoring permanently at the end of this year. It’s hard, but it’s necessary. There are very good people who can take my place.

And what has all this business learning done for the business? Masses! But just to headline a few points. We have sold almost as many maps in one year as we sold in six years before! We were operating in five countries and in just over a year we have doubled that to twelve countries. Plus, we have attracted serious corporate attention and more.  So, there is no doubt, these have been valuable lessons.

I wouldn’t wish anyone to be as ill as I was in order to learn these lessons, but the reality is that good came from my illness. Perhaps this article will help you get to achieving your business objectives sooner rather than later – at least, try to avoid the illness teaching you! Learn from my pain.


Why Switch to Motivational Maps?

We often with Motivational Maps find that when we talk about them to potential clients and prospects they often comment that they ‘know about that’. ‘That’ meaning the Maps themselves; of course they often know nothing about the Maps but they do know about personality tests and psychometrical profiling tools and the assumption is that these things are all one and the same. It’s a mistake that’s easy to make: after all, you go on-line, answer a bunch of questions and get a report, right?

Unfortunately, so very wrong; but the situation is even worse when I tell you that Motivational Maps are not even in competition with personality and psychometric tools because it does something fundamentally different; yet alas it is in competition with them because at the end of the day most organizations can only afford to use one tool – the cost for one thing and the learning curve for another – and so in a real competitive sense Motivational Maps is the ‘same as’ these other products.

But given this background, why am I insisting that Maps are so different, and why should any organization consider switching to Maps from their old product? There are three compelling reasons and the first is very simple: namely, we must insist, the Maps are doing – describing, measuring, monitoring, maximizing – something quite different from personality and behaviours. They provide feedback on motivation and although one’s personality contributes to one’s motivational profile, it is not the same thing. One key difference that needs to be borne in mind is this: your personality is more or less fixed, it does not change. But your motivators do. The implications of this for any organization are profound.  The first being that personality tools are ‘static’ whereas the Maps are ‘dynamic’ – they change over time and in a way this is more like people really are: they do change, for various reasons, and we need to be aware of these changes, these shifts in their energies and its directions.

Second, and following from the first point, is that because Map profiles do change that means that they pre-empt stereotyping. You are never just one or even three motivators, because next time you do the Map that profile may have changed. This is exactly the reverse of the personality tool; its validity is very much geared to it providing the same result each time the same person does it. And of course this means that you get that ‘pigeon-holing’ (stereotyping ) that so frequently accompanies people when they have had the test and get back into the office: everything they do suddenly being accounted for by their profile. This ultimately demeans people and also starts creating a hierarchy of ‘good’ profile types versus the lesser ones – that’s why you’re in ‘admin’, dear!

However, perhaps the most important thing of all is the third reason and this is less obvious. But once you realize that the stereotyping creates hierarchies, you begin to see that personality and psychometric tools are essentially top-down in their nature. ‘We’ understand your personality now, so we can control you now; and we can recruit just as we want with the added benefit of feeling more certain we can control you then, too!

Motivational Maps, on the other hand, is a bottom-up tool. Yes, management uses it, but can only use it by feeding the desires and wants of the member of staff AND by being attentive to shifts in that member of staff’s profile. We are not saying of course that a wholly bottom-up approach to management is THE solution; but it is clear that there is not enough of it about. If organizations want to find and release creativity and potential in their staff, then the bottom-up approach is the way to go. And Maps are quintessentially built on that premise.

Thus it is that organisations need to realise that not all these tools are the same, and where a budget is limited – and you want staff to get their mojo back – Maps is probably the best product on the market.