Page 74 - Using the Enneagram System to Identify and Grow Your Leadership Strengths and Achieve Maximum Success

Drive for Results 53

The Six leader’s strengths also mirror his or her potential short-
comings or derailers. Sixes usually start with anticipatory or worst-
case planning—i.e., what could go wrong. While this approach has
great value, it also has downsides. The first is that Six leaders may
overfocus (often unintentionally) on the concerns of their teams
or projects at the expense of the strategic priorities of the organi-
zation, division, or other work units. This is referred to as subop-
timization, where a subunit maximizes its interests in a way that is
not optimal for other parts of the organization. Second, while
worst-case planning is an important part of planning and man-
agement, so is best-case scenario planning. Focusing on the nega-
tive too early or placing more emphasis on the negative than on
the positive can demotivate a team and lead to overanalysis and
“analysis paralysis.” Finally, when problems do arise, it’s possible
that the Six will be extremely calm, but it’s also possible that he or
she will react strongly, becoming overly concerned and taking
action that may not be as considered and deliberate as it could be.
Here is a story about a Six leader who was competent in many
respects but was also failing with his staff:

Although Charles was technically capable and his staff
always commented that they thought he was a good human
being, they had difficulty working for him. The staff’s biggest
complaint was that Charles managed their work too closely,
wanting to know the most minute details of their plans and
progress. Not only did they believe that this wasted their
time, but they also felt micromanaged and disempowered.
Because they could not understand why the boss would
want to be so closely involved in the work of staff members
with their high level of capability, they interpreted his
behavior to mean that he was anxious and lacked
confidence. This perceived lack of confidence undermined
Charles’s authority as a leader, and the staff doubted
whether he would be able to come to their aid, if needed, on
important issues (e.g., garnering resources for the group,