www.mariosikora.
com
The Subtypes at Work, Part One
By Mario Sikora
“We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly
programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known
as genes. This is a truth which fills me with
astonishment.”
Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene”
Sandy had just been through an extensive
workshop on the subtypes.
“So what did you learn?” I asked.
“I learned that if you preferred to eat alone in
a restaurant you are a self-preservation subtype; if you
liked to eat with a large group, you are a social; and if
you preferred to eat with one or two close friends you
are a ‘one-to-one’ subtype.”
“Oh, …” was the best I could do for a
response.
Despite the growing amount of literature
published on the instinctual subtypes, there seems to be
a surprising lack of clarity about the topic in some
Enneagram circles. This article is an attempt to clearly
explain the subtypes and show the practical value of
understanding them, especially as it applies to our
working relationships. The article will appear in two
parts. This first part explains the subtypes and how we
can identify our subtype those of others. Part One will
also look at the predictable patterns of the “stacking” of
our subtypes (which is instinct is primary, which is
secondary, etc.) and the relationship between subtypes,
the types, and the “wings.” The second part of the
article will appear next month and address how the
subtypes affect our work lives—our subtype related
strengths and weaknesses, and how the subtypes affect
our performance effectiveness and our interpersonal
relationships.
Think back to the last animal documentary
you watched on the Nature Channel or PBS. Chances
are, whether the subject was a mollusk or a monkey, a
penguin or a peacock, the documentary covered three
fundamental areas: the animal’s nesting habits, its
cultural patterns (i.e., how it formed consistent and
ongoing groupings), and its mating habits. If it was a
comprehensive program, it followed that pattern
because that pretty much completes all there is to know
about any given animal.
Humans are no different: beyond the way we
nest, group, and mate there is not much that we
concern ourselves with (as long as we consider nesting
to include self-nourishment). These are the three things
Copyright 2005. Mario Sikora. All rights reserved.
www.mariosikora.com
we must do in order to survive and possibly pass along
our genes, and almost every action we take can be
traced back to an attempt to satisfy one of these three
fundamental drives. The way we prioritize needs forms
the core of our individual value systems and the
constellation of behaviors we use to satisfy our values.
That is, our hardwired, unconscious focus on a
particular set of survival needs influences the things
that are important to us, the things we think about, and
the things we do to get what we need.
Enneagram Theory and the Instincts
Within the various teachings of the
Enneagram of Personality, it is generally
acknowledged that there are three versions of each
personality type. These versions are differentiated into
three sets of habitual (and probably hardwired) patterns
of attention. The first is a focus on matters of “self-
preservation,” the second is a focus on matters of
“social” interaction; and the third is a focus on matters
of, depending on the author, “intimacy,” “one-to-one”
or “sexual” connection. The different “versions” of
each personality type are referred to as “instinctual
subtypes” (or “instinctual variants” by Riso and
Hudson) because the behaviors related to each focus
are thought to be “instinctual.”
Generally, the subtypes can be defined as
follows: The “self-preservation” subtype is focused on
matters of survival, comfort, health, security, and the
accumulation of resources; the “social” subtype is
focused on relationships to and interactions among the
group; the sexual subtype is focused on matters of
intimacy and bonding with significant others (or, as
some would have it, significant possessions, hobbies,
or activities).
For some reason, one of these instinctual
drives is dominant in us and our needs and values tend
to constellate around it.
People who share a particular personality type
will show distinct differences based on their subtype.
For example, a Social Three will be much more status
and image conscious than a Self-Pres Three, who will
be more overtly focused on production than image.
Understanding one’s subtype helps in two
fundamental ways:
1) It aids in self-awareness because it helps
point to patterns of habitual behavior that can be
problematic, and
2) Understanding the subtypes can help with
typing. For example, understanding the subtypes will
1
 www.mariosikora.com
make it less likely that a Sexual Six is mistyped as an
Eight or a Self-Preservation Four is mistyped as a
Three.
Okay, this sounds simple enough—why do we
need another article on the subtypes?
Over the past year or so I have spent more
time than previously with other Enneagram aficionados
and I keep running into people who have studied the
subtypes extensively but have either misidentified
their own subtype or misidentified the subtypes of their
students. This confusion is most often related to the
sexual subtype—half the people I meet think they are a
sexual subtype, and about half of them are wrong.
This confusion seems to stem from a lack of
clarity around the terminology used to explain the
subtypes and an understanding of how they relate to
personality type. Confusion between the self-
preservation subtype and the sexual subtype, oddly
enough, seems to be the biggest source of confusion.
Perhaps this article will make the distinctions a little
clearer.
In some circles, there is debate over whether
the appropriate term is “instinctual subtype” or
“instinctual variant.” There are valid arguments on
both sides of this topic, none of which seem to have
much relevance beyond semantic preference. I
frequently use “subtypes,” “variations,” “versions,”
and other words depending on mood, context, and
simple whimsy when I teach this topic to my clients,
and it has not clouded the learning.
There is common agreement on the term “self-
preservation” for the first subtype and it seems to be
pretty accurate. In a sense, the purpose of all of our
genetically based instincts is preservation of the gene,
and this instinct is focused on fundamental survival and
well-being of the host—that is, the individual.
Fundamentally, this instinct relates to nesting and self-
maintenance. It is also about conservation;
conservation of the self, conservation of one’s energy,
and conservation of resources.
Therefore, one who is a self-preservation
subtype will talk about food, their health, financial
security (though not necessarily about vast
accumulation of wealth, despite what some have
written), and their immediate physical comfort. They
will nest—preferring to be home in the well-defined
and established comfort of their private domain than to
be in a place where they can’t control their
environment. This subtype tends to be the most
introverted of the three because their focus
automatically goes to their own well-being (i.e.,
inward) rather than to what others are doing.
Home and family are critically important the
self-preservations and they like to be surrounded by
Copyright 2005. Mario Sikora. All rights reserved.
www.mariosikora.com
their relatives and comforting possessions. They often
have a persnickety attitude toward food, textures, and
the creature comforts, and they are often highly attuned
to matters of health. Regarding money, they want
enough to ensure comfort, but are rarely willing to take
the risks associated with accumulating great wealth.
There is also common agreement on the term
“social” for the next instinct, though this instinct is
often misunderstood. This instinct is not about
gregariousness, it is a drive to orient oneself toward the
group; i.e., it helps one answer the questions, “Where
and how do I fit into my society?” and “How do I
compare to others?” It is often taught that someone
who is a social subtype likes to be around and interact
with large groups of people, but this is only partially
true. A social subtype wants to know where they fit in
the hierarchy of the group, and in order to know this
they have to keep tabs on what the group is up to,
which requires contact and observation. A social
subtype likes the idea of people and often wants to be
around them, but doesn’t necessarily want to interact
with them.
Like the first, this instinct aids in survival of
the individual in a number of ways. First, it is the lone
antelope that gets eaten by the lion, and being part of a
group has many safety advantages. Second, we learn
from the group—we learn where the food and water are
and we learn techniques for survival. Social bonding
also ensures that we will be supported by the group
when it is needed, such as in times of sickness, old age,
or calamity.
A distinct and observable pattern of the social
subtype is comparison and contrasting of themselves
with others. This persistent question of “how do I stack
up?” is critical for self-orientation. Social subtypes talk
about people—what other people do, who they do it
with, and why they do what they do. In a sense, the
social subtype is the most judgmental of the subtypes
in that they have strong opinions about the ways that
others should behave in relationship to the group, and
they are generally the most concerned with or dogmatic
about “social issues”: politics, activism, etc.
In terms of language and terminology, the
“sexual” subtype can be problematic. Americans, in
particular, have a contradictory relationship with
sexuality, swaying between puritanical repression and
overt sexuality, often in the same person. Many are
uncomfortable talking about sex and sexuality, but
everyone wants to be perceived as sexy.
Discussion of sex is even more problematic
for those of us who use the Enneagram in
organizations. Discussing sex is inappropriate in the
business world and consultants are wise to avoid the
topic if they are teaching the Enneagram to a business
group.
2
 www.mariosikora.com
Some who teach the subtypes try to get around
this discomfort by labeling this subtype as the
“intimacy” or “one-to-one” subtype, and this is where
the problem begins (though I use the word “intimacy”
in training programs). This instinct is not about
platonic bonding with another; this instinct is about
attracting and mating with another.
If we think back to our nature documentary,
the peacock was not displaying his feathers so he could
bond platonically with another peacock or so he could
be deeply absorbed in his preferred hobby (as some
Enneagram teachers would have it)—he was trying to
attract and seduce a peahen so he could have sex with
her. This is what a human who is a sexual subtype is
instinctively focused on: attracting and seducing a
potential sexual partner. (Unfortunately, the indelicacy
of that sentence makes it no less true.)
Behaviors consistently seen in this subtype are
typical “alpha” male or female behaviors and tend to
revolve around personal display and control of the
resources evolutionarily attractive to the opposite sex.
They focus more on their looks and appearance than
the other subtypes, they wear more jewelry, and,
generally, they talk about sex more than the other
subtypes. They are typically more extraverted and
charming than the other subtypes, qualities consistent
with their habitual focus on getting the attention of a
potential mate.
Beyond the physical appearance and charm of
the subtype, there is a tendency to attract attention to
by talking about themselves, boasting of their
accomplishments or simply turning the conversation
back to themselves in an attempt to be noticed. (In
addition to spreading his wings, the peacock lets out a
loud call to turn the peahen’s attention his way.)
Tell-Tale Behaviors
The things we focus on and the things we talk
about betray our subtype. When we are not consciously
thinking about something specific, we are probably
thinking about the needs stemming from our dominant
instinct.
Therefore, someone with a self-preservation
subtype will talk about their homes, their health, and
their physical and financial security. They will
constantly monitor their environment and focus on
shaping it in ways that will increase their physical
comfort.
The social subtype will talk about other
people—who is doing what with whom and why. They
will compare and contrast people, passing judgment on
others behaviors and choices.
The sexual subtype will talk about
themselves—their accomplishments, their
relationships, and their activities; they will also talk
about sex. They will draw attention to themselves
Copyright 2005. Mario Sikora. All rights reserved.
www.mariosikora.com
through their appearance, their charm, and their
possessions.
Type and Subtype
So what is the relationship between
personality type and instinctual subtype?
Merriam-Webster defines “personality” as
“the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional
characteristics.” (I would add something about
cognitive patterns to this definition.) There are many
interpretations and opinions on what is at the root of
personality as delineated by Enneagram theory—holy
ideas, vices, fixations, original wounds, etc. In our
book, “From Awareness to Action: The Enneagram,
Emotional Intelligence and Change,” Bob Tallon and I
lay out the “Enneagram of Strategies.” We propose that
the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral characteristics
that comprise a particular Ennea-type are rooted in a
preferred strategy for interacting with the world, or
what each type is “striving to be” (see Table One).
For example, the characteristics found in Type
Two are rooted in “striving to be connected” and all of
their intra- and interpersonal characteristics are in some
way related to this preferred strategy for being in the
world. In short, our personality type is a collection of
tactics consistent with a strategy for how we go about
getting our needs met.
Our “instinctual subtype,” on the other hand,
identifies which of these three instinctive drives is
dominant in us. This instinctive drive is the root of our
fundamental needs and values; it is the “goal” you are
trying to achieve. If you are a self-preservation
subtype, for example, your “goals”—the fundamental
needs and the things you deem important—will be
related to nesting and nurturing.
Therefore, our instincts determine what we
want; our strategy is the “theme” of how we go about
getting what we want; and our “personality type” is a
classification of the habitual cognitive, behavioral and
emotional tactics we rely on to carry out our preferred
strategy.
(Of course, this raises a question: Should we
actually be calling the instinctual subtype our “type”
and our Ennea-type our “subtype?”)
Let’s look at how this interaction plays out
with Ennea-type Eight.
Ennea-type Eight primarily relies on the
strategy of “striving to be powerful” as their means of
interacting with their world. “Power” is the capacity to
act or produce an effect. Eights accumulate this
capacity and put it to use at almost any opportunity.
There is an element of dominance and control to this
strategy, and Eights implicitly or explicitly dominate
and control their worlds, especially those parts of their
world related to their dominant instinctive drive.
3
 www.mariosikora.com
The Self-Preservation Eight uses the strategy
of “striving to be powerful” to meet his nesting and
nurturing needs. They aggressively protect their “turf”
and can become combative when people mess with
their possessions. They are very focused on family and
take pride in providing for those close to them. They
place very high expectations of loyalty on friends and
coworkers and are particularly unforgiving of betrayal.
They work hard and accumulate resources, but like all
self-preservations they are generally conservative
regarding the accumulation (and expenditure) or
resources. They save rather than gamble, and are
generally content with knowing that they have enough
of what they need. Of course, Eights being Eights,
“enough” is probably more than it would be for most of
the other types.
The Social Eight uses “striving to be
powerful” to orient themselves to the group. They are
the classic leaders of the Enneagram; they orient
themselves to the group by dominating it. This
dominance, again, can be either implicit or explicit. A
Social Eight will allow someone else to lead the group,
as long as she feels that the leader is competent. Even
when she is not the official leader, however, the Social
Eight will see herself as the de facto leader. As soon as
weakness or incompetence is observed, the Social
Eight will step in and take over—she simply can’t help
herself. If dominance of the group is not possible and
competence is not being demonstrated by the official
leader, the Social Eight will leave and form her own
group. Social Eights also compare and contrast
themselves to others in terms of power; habitually
identifying ways in which they can (even if only to
themselves) demonstrate dominance over others by
being stronger, smarter, better connected, more
determined, etc., than those they have to interact with.
Sexual Eights are the alpha males and females
of the Enneagram. They are the most forceful presence
in any room and demand that all eyes be turned to
them. They are louder and more self-assertive than
others, demonstrating their virility or desirability at any
opportunity. They aggressively accumulate and control
resources, but in a very different way than the SP
Eight. They control resources not so they will be secure
for a rainy day, but so that the desired other will notice
and desire them in return. As Tony Montana says in the
movie “Scarface”: “In America, Manny, first you get
the money. When you get the money, you get the
power. When you get the power, you get the girl.”
As an example of the confusion between the
self-preservation and sexual subtypes in general, it is
often taught that Donald Trump is a Self-Preservation
Eight because he is “so focused on money.” He is
not—he is a Sexual Eight. Each time he plasters
“Trump” on the top of a building, gets in front of a TV
Copyright 2005. Mario Sikora. All rights reserved.
www.mariosikora.com
camera, or “writes” another book he is spreading his
feathers for all of the peahens to see.
Dominant and Secondary Instincts
We possess all three instincts to a greater or
lesser degree, and our innate prioritization of them can
be viewed as a stack.
One instinct is dominant, and it is the area
where we most often habitually place our attention.
This area seems to be the source of our greatest gifts;
since we place so much energy there we get good at the
skills required for success in that area. Self-
preservation subtypes tend to be knowledgeable or
skilled around food, managing money, decorating their
homes, etc. Social subtypes understand people and
group dynamics, feeling comfortable and at ease with
different types of people. Sexual subtypes are usually
charming, attractive, and assertive and often become
successful in the world.
This area of dominant focus can also be the
source of our greatest dysfunction. When we feel
threatened, we tend to greatly overdo our strategy in
that area—the sexual subtype becomes promiscuous or
demanding of attention, the social subtype becomes
critical and controlling of the group, the self-
preservation subtype becomes fearful and obsessed
with lack of resources or well-being.
Another instinct plays a secondary role in our
psyche. We spend energy on it, but to a lesser degree
than the first. Under great stress, this instinct may
prove to be even more problematic than the first
because it is important to us but we don’t spend enough
time on it to become skillful. Thus, a secondary sexual
instinct will cause insecurity over attractiveness and
desirability mixed with a desire to prove it; the
secondary social instinct causes and insecurity about
role and interpersonal acceptability mixed with a desire
to gain it; and the secondary self-preservation instinct
will cause insecurity about resources and health mixed
with the desire to achieve them.
The third instinct seems to be an area of little
concern. There tends to be minimal attention to and a
lack of problematic insecurity in this area. We must be
careful that our lack of attention to this does not cause
an oversight that can affect our daily lives, however. If
your tertiary instinct is for self-preservation, you must
be careful to take care of you health and save for a
rainy day; if it’s social, you must be careful to develop
effective interpersonal skills and sensitivity; if it’s
sexual, you must be careful to groom and remain
desirable to your significant other.
It seems that the “stacking” of our instincts is
predictable. A primary sexual instinct will be
accompanied by a secondary self-preservation instinct,
a primary social with a secondary sexual, and a
primary self-preservation with a secondary social.
4
 www.mariosikora.com
The question is: Why, and how can we use
this knowledge? As to why, it seems too important to
be a random evolutionary byproduct so it must serve a
purpose. Perhaps it is because nature needs some sort
of predictability in its “randomness.” Perhaps it is
because the secondary instinct supports the primary
instinct in a particularly adaptive way.
For example, a secondary social instinct
supports a primary self-preservation instinct because
understanding group dynamics aids in the
accumulation of necessary resources. A secondary self-
preservation instinct supports the sexual instinct
because a healthy person is more desirable than an
unhealthy person. A secondary sexual instinct supports
the social instinct because desirability increases one’s
standing within the group. Of course, these could also
be post facto rationalizations and I leave this to smarter
people to figure out.
Whether or not the stack is predictable is
relevant, however, because it can accelerate self-
understanding and aid in relationships.
The way it accelerates self-understanding is
obvious. The way it aids in relationships will be
discussed in the second half of this article. For now,
suffice it to say that we connect with others around
shared values and interests. Our instinctive drives
influence our values and interests. This predictability
of stacking ensures that we will share at least one
instinctive drive with everyone else. Understanding the
stacking will help us accelerate the finding of common
ground with others.
The Instincts and Wings
While there does not seem to be a noticeable
preponderance of any given subtype within any type
(or vice versa), there does seem to be a consistency
between subtype and wing.
A caveat: I do not place a lot of value on the
various wing theories and I do not teach them to my
clients. They seem to be confusing to people; I’ve
Copyright 2005. Mario Sikora. All rights reserved.
www.mariosikora.com
heard far too many debates about who has what wing
in Enneagram circles and watched too many people
struggle to decide their wing. They also don’t seem to
add information that can be used for action. They don’t
seem to answer any practical questions that can’t be
answered by more critical components of the
Enneagram model and the subtypes. They add a level
of complexity that may be valuable for description but
can be distracting for work on self. The Enneagram is
already complex enough and the wings don’t, to my
mind, add value that outweighs the added complexity.
(I can feel many readers taking umbrage with this;
please remember that it is a personal bias. If you find
the wings to be of value, flap away.)
That said, there seems to be a consistency
between subtype and type/wing relationship. For
example, Sexual Fives identify themselves as having a
Four Wing while Social Fives identify as themselves as
having a Six Wing. Table Two identifies the
Type/Wing/Subtype patterns I’ve identified so far.
I offer this observation up to the readership of
the Monthly to debate and either confirm or refute, and
to offer any observations on why these relationships
may exist.
To be continued… The second part of this
article will address the subtypes and the affect they
have on our work lives.
Mario Sikora is president of Enneagram
Consulting & Training Company and ATA Consulting.
He is co-author of “From Awareness to Action: The
Enneagram, Emotional Intelligence and Change”
(University of Scranton Press). He has coached over
200 executives of Fortune 500 companies and
government organizations and delivered enneagram-
based leadership development programs to
organizations including Motorola, Johnson & Johnson,
and Rohm & Haas. He can be reached at
Mario@enneagramconsulting.com.
5
 www.mariosikora.com

Table One: The Enneagram of Strategies (Copyright Mario Sikora and Robert Tallon)

Striving to be Perfect—The desire to be flawless,

Strategy at
good, and to feel that everything is right with you and
Point One
the world.
Striving to be Connected—The desire to be
Strategy at
appreciated and to be deeply united with others and
Point Two
with your own feelings.
Striving to be Outstanding—The desire to stand out
Strategy at
as an exemplary member of the group and to be seen
Point Three
as valuable, successful, and accomplished.
Striving to be Unique—The desire to be different,
Strategy at
autonomous, creative, and to be understood and
Point Four
appreciated for your special qualities.
Striving to be Detached—The desire to be
Strategy at
autonomous, independent, and able to find serenity
Point Five
with your own thoughts.
Striving to be Secure—The desire to be safe and a
Strategy at
part of a group, cause, or philosophy; to trust others
Point Six
and your own judgment.
Strategy at Striving to be Excited—The desire to be stimulated,
Point Seven happy, enthusiastic, and to have fun.
Striving to be Powerful—The desire to be strong, to
Strategy at
take action, and to be able to express your will,
Point Eight
power, and vitality.
Striving to be Peaceful—The desire to be at peace
Strategy at
with the world, other people, and your own thoughts;
Point Nine
to be calm and relaxed.

TABLE TWO: The Type/Wing/Subtype Relationships

* Indicates an area of confusion. The individual may resonate with both or neither wing, the wing may vary
depending on gender, or it may change depending on circumstances.

Subtype/Type = Type/Wing Subtype/Type = Type/Wing Subtype/Type = Type/Wing

Self-Pres/1 = 1/9 Self-Pres/4 = 4/3 Self-Pres/7 = 7/6
Social/1 = 1/2 Social/4 = * Social/7 = *
Sexual/1 = * Sexual/4 = 4/5 Sexual/7 = 7/8
Self-Pres/2 = 2/1 Self-Pres/5 = * Self-Pres/8 = 8/9
Social/2 = 2/3 Social/5 = 5/6 Social/8 = *
Sexual/2 = * Sexual/5 = 5/4 Sexual/8 = 8/7
Self-Pres/3 = * Self-Pres/6 = 6/5 Self-Pres/9 = 9/1
Social/3 = 3/2 Social/6 = 6/7 Social/9 = *
Sexual/3 = 3/4 Sexual/6 = * Sexual/9 = 9/8

Copyright 2005. Mario Sikora. All rights reserved. 6

www.mariosikora.com