Content area
Full text
Abstract
In this article the first results are shown of a research study on the relationship between Enneagram types and KAI scores. In many descriptions of the Enneagram types, several remarks are made about the style of problem-solving and creativity. With this research the authors try to explore the validity of these descriptions by using the KAI inventory in a sample of 124 persons with highly accurately described Enneagram types. The results of the research proved to be statistically significant. Most findings support the Enneagram descriptions, but some do not. Deeper research into the meaning of concepts such as "creativity" and "innovation" in descriptions of the Enneagram types is needed.
Introduction
The question that motivated this study was this: Can popular descriptions of the creativity and problem-solving characteristics of the Enneagram types can be sharpened by applying a well- validated theory of problem solving styles? In an effort to answer this question, this research study applies the Kirton Adaption Innovation theory to the Enneagram personality types.
This study seeks to find out if general references to the creative problemsolving styles of the Enneagram types that can be found in some of the most authoritative descriptions of the types are really accurate. Descriptions of the Enneagram types often include accounts of particular types' conformism or nonconformism, their innovativeness, and their adaptablity. For instance, a type 9 person is usually described as being conforming. However, the authors knew of at least one person with the type 9 personality who consistently scored 1 18 on the KAI, the Kirton Adaption Innovation Inventory, meaning she was decidedly on the innovative side of the scale.
According to the Adaption-Innovation theory of Kirton (1989) the tendencies of conformism and innovativeness are mutually exclusive. When we use this theory to evaluate common ideas about the Enneagram types, several questions emerge: How can we define the supposed creativity of type 4? What exactly is meant by that? What does it mean that type 7s are repeatedly described as innovative? Certainly not all 7s have created big innovations. One could suppose type 1 to have an improvement-based style, but is this really true? And what about the creative disposition of type 2, for which we did not find any problem-solving statements in...