|
Enneagram Main Board Archive Re: TIME leaders and revolutionariesPosted by Copperhead on April 11, 1998 at 00:51:11: In Reply to: Re: TIME leaders and revolutionaries posted by Michelle on April 10, 1998 at 19:43:00:
: Hmmmm...No TWOS , THREES or FOURS as LEADERS. I can understand the TWO and FOUR but I thought thered be a THREE someplace??? Your observation is important - Two, Three, and Four make up the "feeling" triad. Twos, as I have observed and noted (see previous post), generally make poor leaders. The role is simply too stressful for them (interestingly, the natural leader, Eight, is their stress point!). Fours have an awareness which make them (in my opinion) good and rather fair leaders, but, because of their self-absorption, they seldom hear the calling of leadership. The absence of Threes - yes, this is the curious part. I believe the absence of threes on the TIME list supports the thesis that, although Threes usually seek and often obtain positions of leadership, they are not *really* acting as leaders. Rather, they are simply embodying whatever qualities they perceive to be in fashion at the time. Consider type Three Clinton, who is notorious for asking for polls before making any policy decision, no matter how minor. Great leaders - the sort that might be considered "person of the century" - think independently - they consider the interests of their constituents, they consult their principles, they examine the facts, and likely they seek the advice of a few others whom they feel they can trust. But certainly they do not primarily care about being "popular" - rather, they will make the decision they feel is the best. And this distinction, I believe, is one that is difficult for Threes to make.
|
|