Enneagram Leaders:Push or Pull ?

Have you ever noticed which way you step into a difficult conversation? Some of us jump in with a view. Others draw the room out. I’ve come to think neither is better, but each has a blind spot. For many women, the blind spot is the one the organisation has quietly been asking them to fill.

John Heron describes six styles of intervention, and they split into two groups. The first three are push styles: prescribing, informing and challenging. The second three are pull styles: releasing, exploring and supporting.

Prescribing is giving direction: “I’d recommend we park this and come back to it.” Informing is sharing what you know: “I noticed something similar when we tried this before.” Challenging is testing assumptions: “Are we assuming it’s the same problem as last year?” Releasing invites out the feelings in the room: “How are you feeling about this?” Exploring opens up thinking: “What’s your thinking behind that?” Supporting builds confidence: “I really appreciated the way you handled that.”

So where do the iEQ9 types fit? In my experience working with teams and one-to-one coachees, I’ve seen patterns that line up with the Enneagram types. Types 1, 3, 7 and 8 often reach for prescribing and informing quickly, especially when a decision needs to move. Types 2, 4 and 9 tend to reach for supporting and releasing. Types 5 and 6 can move between the two, depending on how safe the room feels. These are patterns I’ve noticed, not fixed rules, so I’d always check them with the person in front of you.

Here’s why this matters for women leading. Research on women in leadership has long described a double bind. When a woman uses push styles, she can be read as too aggressive. When she uses pull styles, she can be read as too soft or not decisive enough. The same behaviour gets a different label depending on who’s doing it. So many women end up choosing the least risky style and sticking with it.

I worked recently with a senior woman leader in a large global organisation. Her iEQ9 type is strongly type 8. Decisive, direct and driven by getting things done, she was the person her organisation turned to when something needed to move. That strength had carried her a long way, and it was also starting to cost her. Her team was pushing back quietly, and she was finding it harder to get the senior access she needed.

We didn’t try to change who she was. We looked at which of her styles she was using and when. She was very good at prescribing and challenging, and she was rarely using exploring or supporting. Over the course of our work, she began to ask more open questions before deciding, and to name what she saw in the room rather than assume it. She didn’t become softer. She became a leader who could choose.

The results followed. Her team engagement scores rose significantly over the following year, and she has since built stronger relationships with the senior leaders she needed to reach. The change wasn’t in her personality. It was in her access to the other half of the toolkit.

That’s the point. The leaders I’ve seen do this well, whatever their type, can move between both groups and know which one the moment needs. Two things help. First, notice your default. Over one meeting, see which style you reach for most. If you’re mostly push, look for one moment to explore. If you’re mostly pull, find one moment to say clearly what you think. Second, choose on purpose. Before you respond, ask what the situation needs: a decision, a stuck conversation, or a team that’s gone quiet. Then reach for the style that fits, even if it’s not your comfort zone.