The Communicating Enneagram #4; Objectives and Methodology (Appendix)


communicating Enneagram copy

Appendix

This is one of the parts unpublished in the Enneagram Monthly. It explains how I approached the subject. You will need to then review all the LAB Profile patterns that are relevant, so I will publish in this blog, the six motivation traits first, along with the patterns for each type that I ascertained from the full 144 RHETI questionnaire.
These results were added to a score and review which will be published at the end of the series.

I strongly recommend you read “Words That Change Minds” by Shelle Rose Charvet as a references to this series.

Objectives

The aim was to identify any broad links to specific types from which combinations of types and wings might emerge. This might offer some insight as to how the different patterns emerge depending on context. It might be that our wing-type, is more prevalent in certain contexts.

The next step was to explore what effects the levels of development might have on the LAB patterns – as well as points of dis-integration and integration. This would be significant for anyone coaching a person who might be experiencing some stress. The presenting LAB pattern(s) may help identify an appropriate (and maybe in-appropriate) direction for coaching.

As a final piece, I wanted to explore if there were any overall patterns of distribution as identified in the Hornevian and Harmonics. (keeping in mind the Riso-Hudson discoveries of numerical and equilibrium balances)

Method

1)            A LAB profile was carried out on all 244 questions of the RHETI in order to identify presupposed LAB patterns. ie: question 45 “Dealing with details has not been one of my strong suits” suggest a ‘General’ LAB pattern for type seven. (Someone who prefers big picture-overview rather than details)

The alternative for type three “I have excelled at dealing with details” infers a “Specific” LAB Pattern.(a person with this preference start with the details and chunks down to specific aspects of a subject)  However, other patterns may not be quite so obvious; some questions  ‘eluding to’ a certain pattern or set of patterns.

The RHETI is mostly based on average levels of personality.
NOTE: the Data scores are based on 1 point for each pattern identified. This results in  some patterns receiving very high scores. This may not necessarily mean that the type is an “extreme” of the pattern, but would certainly indicate a preference.
Where the presupposition of the question could be interpreted from the aspect of more than one trait, scores have been given to the possibility of more than one meaning. Hence some of the lower scoring traits of the RHETI -LAB profile may be misleading if taken in isolation.

2)            In order to identify possible LAB pattern shifts, a LAB profile was carried out on the nine levels of development, as presented in the Riso/Hudson part one Professional Training manual. The purpose was to see if any, patterns emerged or changed at specific levels of development. (note; as LAB profiling is very dependent on the different kinds words that a people use to describe the same type of situation, there is always a risk of picking up the ‘authors’ preferred thinking style and therefore, the authors LAB profile)

3)            The two profiles were combined to identify the two or three ‘Key Drivers’ and significant shifts. From this information, and combined with personal observations of type, I have presented a LAB profile for each type and wings; and identifiable shifts of the healthy and unhealthy levels.

4)            For the final part of this paper, I have offered some possibilities of distribution of the LAB  patterns. First in the form of the Data collected and then as an intuitive best guess.

The next blog will provide the 6 LAB Profile Motivation Traits and the RHETI distribution for each type

 

SHARE
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail