Adam Grant and the Enneagram: Is His Skepticism Justified?

Adam Grant has never been the Enneagram's biggest fan.

As an organizational psychologist, Wharton professor, and bestselling author known for challenging conventional thinking, Grant has raised questions about personality frameworks and their scientific credibility.

But during an October 2026 episode of The Curiosity Shop with Brené Brown, something interesting happened: Grant agreed to take an Enneagram assessment and revisit the topic with Brown on his podcast, ReThinking.

Brown, who identifies as an Enneagram Type 1, even mentioned having a theory about his type.

As someone who uses the Enneagram professionally to help teams improve communication and workplace relationships, this caught my attention.

So, does Adam Grant have a point about the Enneagram?

I think he does. But I also think there's more to the conversation.

Why Is Adam Grant Skeptical of the Enneagram?

Grant has been a vocal critic of popular personality assessments, questioning whether they accurately measure personality and whether people should place so much confidence in their results.

There are three important questions worth asking about any personality framework:

• Reliability: Does the assessment produce consistent results?

• Validity: Does it measure what it claims to measure?

• Categorization: Can human personality really be divided into nine distinct types?

These are legitimate concerns.

Personality is complex, and recognizing ourselves in a description doesn't necessarily establish that the description is scientifically accurate.

It's also why we discourage using the Enneagram to make hiring decisions or predict someone's job performance. Someone identifying as a Type 7 doesn't automatically mean they'll be more creative, any more than identifying as a Type 1 guarantees attention to detail.

The Enneagram should encourage curiosity about people, not become another way to label or limit them.

Is the Enneagram Scientifically Valid? What the Research Says

A 2021 systematic review published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology examined 104 independent research samples exploring the Enneagram.

The findings were mixed.

Researchers found some relationships between Enneagram subscales and established personality constructs, including the Big Five. Some studies also suggested benefits for personal and spiritual growth.

However, the review identified important limitations, including insufficient empirical support for nine distinct personality categories and limited research supporting secondary theories such as wings and movement between types.

In other words, the existing research doesn't validate every claim made about the Enneagram.

And I think that's important to acknowledge.

If we're using the Enneagram to become more self-aware, shouldn't we be willing to practice some self-awareness about the framework itself?

What About Newer Enneagram Research?

The scientific conversation hasn't stopped.

In 2024, psychiatrist and researcher Dr. Daniel J. Siegel, along with the PDP Group, published Personality and Wholeness in Therapy: Integrating 9 Patterns of Developmental Pathways in Clinical Practice.

The book explores Enneagram-inspired personality patterns through the lens of interpersonal neurobiology, examining nine developmental pathways and the strategies people use to navigate their experiences and relationships.

This isn't a new study proving the Enneagram is scientifically valid.

But it is an interesting example of contemporary clinicians and researchers exploring how these patterns might be understood and applied.

I'd love to see more of that kind of investigation, particularly research exploring whether Enneagram-based development experiences produce measurable improvements in workplace communication and collaboration.

Not All Enneagram Models Are Taught the Same Way

Here's something I think gets overlooked when we discuss the Enneagram's credibility: Not everyone teaches or applies the same version of the framework.

Over time, different Enneagram traditions have developed a wide range of theories and interpretations, including:

• Wings and subtypes

• Centers of Intelligence (Head, Heart, and Body)

• Passions, vices, and virtues

• Childhood wounds and origin stories

• Spiritual interpretations and theories about connections between types

Some people find these approaches incredibly meaningful, particularly in personal or spiritual development settings.

But not every theory has the same level of research support, and not every concept is equally useful in a professional environment.

I learned that firsthand.

The Workshop Experience That Changed How I Teach the Enneagram

Years ago, I was facilitating an Enneagram workshop where I was teaching the traditional Centers of Intelligence.

In this model, Type 1 is placed in the Body or Gut Center alongside Types 8 and 9.

But I regularly encountered Type 1 participants who identified strongly with thinking, analyzing, and spending a significant amount of time in their heads.

They would question how their personal experience fit what I was teaching.

And I found myself spending more and more time explaining the theory back to them.

Eventually, I had a realization:

I was spending more time defending the model than understanding the person sitting in front of me.

That felt completely backwards.

To be clear, the Centers framework doesn't literally suggest that Type 1s don't think. But I was finding that explaining its distinctions created more confusion than clarity in my workshops.

It became a turning point in how I approached the Enneagram.

I eventually adopted the Awareness to Action approach, which focuses on nine type strategies, three Instinctual Biases, and practical development rather than many of the traditional theoretical layers.

It's a more focused approach that works well for the conversations we're trying to facilitate.

And it reinforced something I still believe strongly today:

The model should serve the person. The person shouldn't have to serve the model.

What Are We Actually Trying to Accomplish With the Enneagram at Work?

At Enneagram MBA, we're not bringing the Enneagram into organizations to prove that everyone fits neatly into one of nine scientifically established categories.

We're using it as a framework to help people recognize patterns, understand different perspectives, and have more productive conversations.

Consider a few common workplace situations:

• One colleague asks question after question before making a decision. Their manager interprets this as resistance, when the person may simply want to understand the risks.

• A leader pushes someone toward improvement because they see that person's potential. The employee experiences the same behavior as criticism.

• Two departments disagree over a new initiative because one is focused on protecting resources while the other sees an opportunity for growth.

In each situation, the behavior is only part of the story.

What changes when we become curious about what's motivating that behavior?

That's where I find the Enneagram particularly useful.

It offers teams a shared language for exploring differences that often go unspoken.

That doesn't mean every workplace insight validates the Enneagram's underlying theory. And it doesn't mean a successful workshop proves the framework improves organizational performance.

But the conversations themselves can be meaningful—and they're worth studying.

So, Is Adam Grant Right About the Enneagram?

I think he's right to question the evidence.

I think practitioners should be careful about overstating scientific validity, assigning people fixed identities, or treating every Enneagram teaching as an established fact.

And I think we should welcome thoughtful criticism rather than immediately becoming defensive.

At the same time, I believe there's value in asking a different set of research questions.

Can a structured Enneagram workshop help coworkers better understand each other's perspectives?

Can it improve communication, collaboration, or the way people navigate conflict?

How does its effectiveness compare with other workplace development approaches?

Those are questions I'd love to see researchers and practitioners explore together.

I don't need Adam Grant to become an Enneagram enthusiast.

But I appreciate his willingness to investigate something he's questioned.

Because whether we're researchers, Enneagram coaches, or managers trying to understand our teams, curiosity is a better starting point than certainty.

 Related resources

• Adam Grant and Brené Brown on The Curiosity Shop

• The Enneagram: A Systematic Review of the Literature

• Personality and Wholeness in Therapy by Daniel J. Siegel and the PDP Group

• Explore Enneagram Team Workshops

• Free Workshop Planning Kit

• Where Did the Enneagram Come From? 

•  Should You Hire Based on Enneagram Type?  

Sarah Wallace is the founder and managing director of Enneagram MBA, where she helps organizations build stronger workplace relationships through facilitated Enneagram workshops, leadership retreats, and team development programs.