Enneagram-based coaching
Enneagram-based coaching uses a nine-type personality typology to look at the habits, motives and fears that tend to drive a person's choices. The typology is associated with Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo, and Don Riso and Russ Hudson wrote it up for general readers. Its validity evidence is weak or mixed. In the one study reviewed here that tested a specific prediction of the typology, the prediction was not supported.
What it is
Enneagram-based coaching uses a typology of nine personality types, usually drawn as a circle with numbered points. Coach and client use the type as a starting point for looking at habits, motives and the fears that tend to drive decisions.
The coaching uses type language to name patterns, then asks what changes when a person notices them. Whether the types describe people accurately is a separate question, and the research on it is weak or mixed, as the sections below explain.
Where it comes from
The typology is associated with Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo. Don Riso and Russ Hudson's The Wisdom of the Enneagram (1999) presents it for general readers, under the subtitle 'The Complete Guide to Psychological and Spiritual Growth for the Nine Personality Types'. That is a book about the typology, not a test of it.
The principles underneath
Motives over behaviour
The approach organises the nine types around the motives and fears behind habits, rather than around observable behaviour alone. This is the approach's premise, not a finding of research.
Type as a starting point
A type is offered as a place to start reflecting, not as a diagnosis. It is a lens for looking at one's own patterns.
Neighbouring types
Each type sits between two neighbouring types on the circle, and the typology describes a person as having a wing from one of those two. Edwards (1991) tested a prediction that follows from the wing idea, and reported that the prediction was not supported.
How a session runs
- Start by describing a recurring pattern at work or in a relationship, in your own words.
- Look at which of the nine type descriptions fit, and which fit least. The coach asks rather than names a type for you.
- Explore the motive or fear the pattern seems to serve, and what it protects you from.
- Ask what a healthier way of meeting the same need would look like in one concrete situation.
- Try one small change in the coming week, and note what happened.
- Review the change at the next session, and decide whether the type description still fits.
When it tends to fit
- You keep making the same choice under pressure, and you want to see what is driving it.
- You have just read a type description and recognised yourself in it, and you want to test that recognition against your own week.
- A relationship keeps failing in the same way, and each of you describes the pattern differently.
What the research shows
Evidence: Practitioner tradition — little or no outcome research
The sources read for this page point to weak or mixed validity evidence for the typology, and the instrument studies listed below could only be read at the level of their titles and abstracts. Edwards (1991) tested the wing idea, which predicts that people perceive types next to each other on the circle as most similar, and reports that the prediction was not supported. Wagner and Walker (1983) and Newgent and colleagues (2004) published reliability and validity studies of enneagram instruments. The abstracts of these two could not be read for this page, so their findings are not reported here. Boyle (1995) raised psychometric limitations of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a different type-based instrument. It is adjacent, not a test of the enneagram. No coaching outcome study of the enneagram turned up in the searches for this page.
Where the evidence is thin: The validity evidence is thin and mixed. The abstracts that were readable for this page test one prediction and report on one different instrument. No outcome research on enneagram coaching was found.
Sources
- Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1999). The Wisdom of the Enneagram: The Complete Guide to Psychological and Spiritual Growth for the Nine Personality Types. Bantam Books.
- Wagner, J. P., & Walker, R. E. (1983). Reliability and validity study of a Sufi personality typology: The enneagram. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(5), 712–717.
- Newgent, R. A., Parr, P. H., Newman, I., & Wiggins, K. K. (2004). The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator: Estimates of Reliability and Validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36(4), 226–237.
- Edwards, A. C. (1991). Clipping the wings off the enneagram; a study in people's perceptions of a ninefold personality typology. Social Behavior and Personality, 19(1), 11–20.
- Boyle, G. J. (1995). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some Psychometric Limitations. Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 71–74.
Where it stops
The typology is a self-reflection tool with weak validity evidence. Do not use a type as a diagnosis, or as a basis for judgements about someone else's ability or health.
If the reflection brings up trauma, depression or harm in a relationship, a qualified professional is the right next step. A type label does not replace that care.
A type can become a label that closes options. If you notice you are using a type to excuse a pattern, bring that to a counsellor or coach who can challenge it.