Application 5.6: Fishbowl Enneagram Process – Group
Diagnosis
Context of Exercise: The Fishbowl Process can be used for many different
types of conversations (diagnosis, visioning, exploring deep patterns, planning).
The structure of a Fishbowl is often used in conjunction with a first level process
in which multiple small groups engage in the same conversation and the findings
are synthesized and expanded through the fishbowl dialog. This is often essential
when the group size exceeds 20 people. The decision to use the two-step
process often hinges around the ability of a group to have a meaningful
conversation within reasonable and available time limits. It often takes a group of
30-40 more time to have a conversation as a single group than to use the twostep process described below. This staging of conversations can be used with
group sizes up to 250-300 people. In this current application, the focus is on
using both the Fishbowl structure and the enneagram process to explore the
current understanding and thinking of a group before exploring the future state.
This type of focused conversation is diagnostic, in this case the diagnosis is
conducted by the group itself.
Suggested Steps: Working with multiple small groups – Fishbowl Design
For this exercise, the facilitator would be working with a group size in excess of
20 people. For the first level conversation the facilitator would break the group
into small discussion groups of 6-8 people. The configuration of these groupings
would be related to the overall experiential outcomes for the session (e.g.
connections across departments versus introspection within departments).
The facilitator has several options for designing the first level small group
conversations. We would suggest looking at both the Appreciative Inquiry Model
(See pages 74-77) as well as the Discussion Method (See pages 78-82) for the
design of the appropriate questions and sequence. The directions in the first level
conversation would include as a last step, that each small group select 1 or more
stewards that would bring the small group insights into the Fishbowl Process.
Generally, you want between 8-12 people in the Fishbowl.
The second level conversation would employ a modified enneagram process.
The following are suggested steps for facilitating the enneagram Fishbowl
Process:
1. After the stewards convene in the Fishbowl, the Facilitator frames the focus of
the conversation and the desired outcomes. In this application the outcomes
might include:
 Build an understanding of the current assets of the
organization/team
 Identify gaps in understanding and gaps in information



2.
Identity a sense of the shared outcomes and intentions for the
future of the organization
Identity the patterns that restrain the organization from being as
successful as desired.
Identify some next steps in moving from the current state
conversation to the future state outcomes.
The facilitator would then take the group through the following set of
questions. Generally, the facilitator would design and pose one question
for each point on the Enneagram, realizing that they may need to probe
with other follow-up questions based on group response and dynamics.
Current
Identity
Structures
Strategies
Intention
Deep
Learning
Tensions
Issues
Relationships
Connections
Information
Will
The Work
Principles
Standards
The specific sequence of questions:






Current Identity:
From your prior conversations in small groups, what stand out as the
most critical assets of the organization and why?
What are the positive and negative stories that seem to run the culture
of the team or organization?
What is the current energy level around change in the organization?
On a scale of 1-10 what is the level of credibility in current
management/leadership ability and desire to create change?
Information:
What is considered open information, and what information is
unavailable to people in the system?
What is the perceived level of importance around accessibility to
information?




Relationships and Connections:
How would people describe the level of connections within and across
the organization? People, programs and systems.
Intention:
Who seems to really own the current outcomes of the organization?
Are these intentions and outcomes espoused, inferred or actually in
practice?
What new powerful intentions seemed to arise from the small group
conversations?

Principles and Standards:
What set of rules and principles seem to be running the organization?
Where are these coming from, and are the effective?

Tensions and Issues:
When delving deeper into the issues, what recurring patterns of
behavior or ways of operating seem to be subverting their success?

Strategies and Structures:
Do the existing structures and strategies match with the desired
outcomes and intentions of the organization? If not, why not?
3.
The facilitator guides the group through the above conversation and charts
the responses around the enneagram diagram at the center of a large wall.
4.
At the conclusion of the conversation, the facilitator goes back through the
various enneagram locations and checks with the group about the most
significant insights in each area.

5.
Deep Learning:
As a simple way of closure for this conversation, what did we learn
about our organization and about ourselves that we need to consider
for the future?
At this point the facilitator guides the group to identify next steps based on
the outcomes from the prior conversation.

The Work
Given our diagnosis of the current state of our organization, what seem
to be the most apparent and powerful next steps for this conversation
and process?