Many aspects of the Enneagram have been scientifically explored. Notably, a 2018 study published in the Journal of Adult Development showed that learning the Enneagram helped students advance through stages of ego development measured on the Loevinger scale. Other studies have shown correlations between Enneagram type and infant temperament, sexual expression, and other isolated topics.

That said, the Enneagram as a theory is not possible to be scientifically validated. All personality frameworks rest on a priori theoretical assumptions about the psyche that cannot ultimately be proven. Scientific validation of a test is sometimes thought to be validation for the theory it represents, but this is an ontological error. Validating a test does not prove the theory on which it is based. Even the Big 5 -- the most accepted personality framework in academia -- rests on the assumption that the words we use to describe each other can be statistically analyzed to reveal the structure of personality. This is a big assumption indeed, and critics point out that there are inherent biases in language. For example, more words exist to describe social behavior than inner experience, so a personality framework based on language analysis naturally biases towards observable behavior rather than inner structure. 

In many ways, the study of personality reveals the limits of science itself. Science experiments require that variables be reasonably isolated to determine the effect of one variable on another. But how do you isolate an aspect of someone's inner experience from their cultural background, current life circumstances, present mood, what they just ate, or who they just talked to? And remember, scientists have personalities too, which flavor the questions they ask and the way they interpret the answers. This is not a problem that one can solve by simply "being more objective." We are always coming from a perspective, even when we're "doing science."(Professor George C. Boeree explains this well in the introduction to his book, Personality Theories.) 

While the "objective outer world" can be measured, the "subjective inner world" can only be accessed through interpretation. You can measure electric impulses in my brain, but that won't tell you how I feel. Emotions themselves are interpretations of body-states, and the same physiological markers may be interpreted as anger, anxiety, or excitement depending on the person and context (see: How Emotions Are Made by Lisa Feldman Barrett).

When it comes to the inner world, what you see depends on the theory you're looking with. Personality frameworks are only as useful as what they help you to see and describe. The Enneagram is one theory among many, but in our experience, the interpretive possibilities it opens are profoundly useful in all domains human endeavor, including personal growth, leadership, and teamwork. 

No.

Team building is about deepening relationships. This requires time, commitment, and willingness to relate beyond "work personas." 

Whether you work with the Enneagram or not, team-building approached expediently generally fails. But when teams approach team-building with genuine interest in learning about each other, rather than as a quick-fix to "improve culture," they end up actually improving culture and working better together in the long run.

That said, we get that time is limited, so our intro workshop delivers essential insights as efficiently as possible to your team. We recommend starting there and seeing if you'd like to go further.

Ultimately, we prefer to partner with teams over a longer period of time, since the impact is cumulative and exponential.

It depends what the team really needs, and often leaders don’t actually know. That’s where we can help.

If your team is new, you can start building healthy relationships from scratch. Our intro workshop is a great place to start.

In established teams, we often see fundamental issues of trust, consistent with Patrick Lencioni's model from the 5 Dysfunctions of a Team. Sometimes this is because the leader is unknowingly acting out unhealthy psychological tendencies. If so, we may suggest working with the leader 1:1 in addition to the collective team-building effort.

If issues are more decentralized, you can build trust faster than you think. But happy hours and casual hangs don’t work. Forcing people to “get vulnerable” doesn’t work either. Having authentic dialogue, working through tensions, and building real human relationships does.

Our intro workshop is a great place to start for this as well. We can see what else might be needed from there.

The minimum effective dose of team-building depends on the size of the team, the established vibe, and the team’s history. When we meet your team, we can help discern where your team is at and what would be useful.