TEAMER SIX - DUTY

Your Message Was Clear, Correct, and Completely Ignored

They rejected your idea the moment you forgot to cite the policy behind it.

You sent a perfectly reasonable Slack message to the project lead asking the team to shift to a new vendor for a critical integration. You explained the business case. You laid out the benefits. You even added a friendly "let me know what you think!"

The project lead—a Teamer Six—read it twice and then did nothing. Not because they disagreed. Because your message had no procedural foundation. Your message had no reference to the procurement policy, no mention of who authorized the change, and no escalation path if something broke. You presented an opportunity; they saw an unmanaged risk.

Two days later you followed up. They replied with four questions: "Which policy covers this? Who signed off? What's the rollback plan? Where's the documentation?" Your original message answered none of them. You were speaking a language their filters don't process.

The problem with generic communication

Most advice about workplace communication treats people as interchangeable. Write clearly. Be concise. Lead with empathy. These are fine defaults, and they fail constantly with specific people for specific reasons.

Personality science has mapped this for decades. The Enneagram identifies 27 distinct subtypes, each with a different instinctual drive that shapes how they filter, prioritize, and react to incoming messages. These are hardwired filters, running beneath conscious awareness, that determine whether your message lands or gets discarded before it's finished.

The Teamer Six runs every incoming message through one filter: does this reduce anxiety through rules, authority, precision, and procedural certainty? If your communication doesn't anchor to policy, name the authority, and spell out the procedure, it doesn't matter how smart the idea is. It registers as unverified, and unverified is unsafe.

Meet the Teamer Six: "Duty"

Teamer Sixes express fear through a need to deal with anxiety by relying on abstract reason or ideologies as a frame of reference. Obeying authority through knowing what the rules are helps them to feel safe in the world. Unlike the Farmer Six, this Six has more certainty and can be "too sure" of things as a way of dealing with the anxiety of uncertainty. Teamer Sixes focus on precision and efficiency. They adhere to whatever the guidelines are as a form of having a protective authority.

Rule-anchored certainty. Teamer Sixes don't just prefer structure—they require it to function. Their anxiety doesn't come from the task itself but from ambiguity about whether the task is sanctioned. When you skip the policy reference, you remove the one thing that lets them act with confidence.

Precision as safety. Approximate language is threatening to this subtype. "This should work" and "This will work per testing protocol 3B" carry the same content but completely different emotional weight. The first creates anxiety; the second resolves it. They manage fear through exactness.

Authority dependence. They need to know who approved, who executes, and who escalates. Clearly defined authority is the structure that keeps chaos at bay. Undefined authority reads as a system about to fail.

5 ways you're losing them before you start

1. Informal ambiguity. "Let's just figure it out as we go." This creates exactly the kind of uncertainty that activates their anxiety. Use explicit procedural language. Name the steps, the order, and the checkpoints.

2. Rule-bending framing. "I know this isn't exactly standard, but..." You just told them to distrust both you and the request. If there's an approved exception, cite it. If there isn't, show the compliant route instead.

3. Speculative claims. "I'm pretty sure this approach will handle it." Pretty sure is not a verification state. Mark what's confirmed and what's an assumption, then tell them how and when the assumption gets verified.

4. Missing documentation. You made a decision in a meeting and moved on without a written record. For them, an undocumented decision is a liability. Record decisions with accountable owners and dates.

5. Undefined authority. "Someone should probably approve this." Who? This is the question that will loop in their head until you answer it. State who approves and who executes. Remove the ambiguity or accept that nothing will move.

What they actually want to hear

Replace ambiguity with procedure, informality with precision, unnamed authority with named accountability. They're high-clarity.

Try it out: FREE Communication Optimizer for Teamer Sixes

Paste your draft message into your LLM, then paste the following prompt after it.

mode: communication_optimizer
target_subtype: TEAMER_SIX
subtype_name: Duty
instinct: teamer
core_drive: "reduce anxiety through rules authority precision and procedural certainty"
communication_stance: "protocol-driven,precise,compliance-oriented,certainty-seeking"
tone[4]:
  - formal over casual
  - exact over approximate
  - rule-based over ad hoc
  - disciplined over improvisational
message_rules[6]:
  - lead with the governing rule policy or authority
  - define roles responsibilities and escalation path
  - provide precise instructions and acceptance criteria
  - distinguish approved facts from assumptions
  - document decisions and traceability clearly
  - close with confirmation checklist and deadlines
anti_patterns[5]{id,pattern,why_it_fails,fix}:
  1,informal_ambiguity,creates uncertainty and risk,use explicit procedural language
  2,rule_bending_framing,triggers distrust and resistance,show compliant route or approved exception
  3,speculative_claims,weakens reliability,mark assumptions and require verification
  4,missing_documentation,breaks confidence in process,record decisions and accountable owners
  5,undefined_authority,invites conflict and anxiety,state who approves and who executes
few_shot[3]{id,generic,optimized}:
  1,"Let us do what feels right here.","Per policy section 4 we follow workflow B with approval from Ops lead."
  2,"This should probably work.","Validated approach is X. Assumption Y needs confirmation by noon."
  3,"Please take care of this.","You own steps 1 through 3. Escalate exceptions to me immediately."
quality_gate[4]:
  - every instruction should be audit-ready
  - remove vague terms that weaken compliance
  - keep authority and accountability explicit
  - end with verifiable completion criteria
input_source: prior_thread_message

Twenty-seven subtypes. One message.

The Teamer Six needs procedural certainty before they'll act. The Farmer Seven ("Keepers") needs to know their resources are protected before they'll engage. The Hunter One ("Zeal") needs to feel that you share their standard of rightness before they'll listen. Same message, three completely different filters deciding whether it gets through.

Personalization determines whether your message gets read or discarded.

The communicators who learn to match their language to how specific people actually process information will lead better teams, close more deals, and build real trust. Everyone else will keep wondering why clear messages keep getting ignored.

You cited the business case. You forgot to cite the policy. That's why they didn't move.

It's why we're building Rally, communications automatically optimized for each person's instinctual profile. See how we do it: AI Smells Remover.