Types / Interest types / Enterprising · The Persuader
EEnterprising interest · The Persuader
The Navigator.
Ready to take the lead once the evidence checks out.
Enterprising first, Investigative second.
What drives the Navigator
The office wants a smaller energy bill, and most of the meeting is guesswork. Then someone pulls up last year’s meter readings, points at the spike every August, and says, “Start with the air conditioning.” The Navigator came with the numbers, and now the room has a plan.
Evidence gives your judgment direction.
The appeal is not research as a private exercise. It is the moment a confusing situation becomes actionable: evidence narrows the field, and your judgment turns what is known into a decision someone can use.
At your best
Turning scattered information into a direction often makes you persuasive without relying on charm alone.
The trade-off
If you demand one more proof before committing, an opportunity may pass. Once an answer becomes useful, you may feel impatient with the slower work of explaining uncertainty, gathering consent, or letting other people reach the conclusion at their own pace.
What evidence is for
Day to day, the mix can look like managing a team of engineers, leading a company’s sustainability work, or building a business around a scientific idea. Together, they can produce leaders who want influence for a reason: to move a well-supported idea into the world. You are often most engaged when evidence is not treated as an academic endpoint but as a better basis for action.
How you decide
Finding the answer is probably only half the fun for you. The other half is having a say in what happens because of it. You often enjoy taking scattered information, identifying the important variable, and giving people a direction they can act on.
About this information
The hexagon places the interests Holland saw as most alike beside one another, and these two are across it from each other. Enterprising energy asks, “What can we do with this?” Investigative energy asks, “Is it true, and how do we know?”
Our take Built on O*NET’s descriptions of the work each interest describes[1]. It sketches a mix of interests, so expect some lines to fit you better than others—and use the activities to see what holds up in practice.
Enterprising work, according to O*NET, the U.S. Department of Labor’s job database, involves “managing, negotiating, marketing, or selling, typically in a business setting, or leading or advising people in political and legal situations.” Investigative work involves “studying and researching non-living objects, living organisms, disease or other forms of impairment, or human behavior”[1].
How the two letters work together
Across from each other on the hexagon
Holland arranged the six interests in a hexagon, placing the ones he considered most alike closest together. Your two interests are at opposite corners. Few of the occupations O*NET lists lead with these two[1]. Still, liking both isn’t a contradiction, and research finds plenty of people are drawn to both[9]. The combination may describe a real need for variety: work that alternates between different kinds of attention, or a path that changes form over time. You may have to look a little harder for work that uses each, and check the actual tasks rather than relying on a job title.
- E
Enterprising · The Persuader Leading, influencing, persuading, and getting new ventures off the ground.
- I
Investigative · The Thinker Observing carefully, researching questions, and working through complex problems.
When strengths overreach
Every strength solves a real problem. When it runs unchecked, the same strength can create a new one. The cards below name the turning point and the cost you may notice.
Pitching before the numbers land
You like moving once the evidence starts pointing in one direction. You may begin selling the plan before the last results arrive, which makes a surprising number feel like a threat to your judgment rather than useful information. People around you can hear confidence where you mean momentum. If the facts change, changing course may feel like losing credibility, even though the real cost can come from defending a conclusion after its support has gone.
Treating the question as closed
At the meeting, you have the case open, the figures marked, and a clear answer ready. When a coworker pushes back, you may hear resistance before you hear the missing detail they noticed. Your confidence in a well-built argument can make questions feel like attempts to reopen settled ground. People may stop offering useful objections, while you leave with a stronger presentation and a thinner view of what the situation requires.
People who need a different kind of case
When evidence is what convinces you, you may expect a sound case to move everyone in the room. Someone else may care more about who is asking, what changes in their Tuesday, or whether the new plan fits the way work actually happens. A pitch can answer whether an idea is solid and still fail to answer whether people can live with it. You may leave with agreement on the facts and no real adoption.
Working across interests
See how a strongest interest in Enterprising tends to affect the way you work alongside each of the six interests.
- R
Realistic · The Doer
- Where your styles complement each other
- You may make the case and line up the backing, while they may make it real.
- Where your styles may pull in different directions
- You might promise a finish date or result before they’ve seen what the job involves.
- I
Investigative · The Thinker
- Where your styles complement each other
- They may check whether an idea holds up, while you may get people behind the ones that do.
- Where your styles may pull in different directions
- You might be ready to run with a convincing pitch while they’re still checking whether it’s true.
- A
Artistic · The Creator
- Where your styles complement each other
- They bring the original idea, and you find the people, resources, and backing it needs.
- Where your styles may pull in different directions
- Your push toward an outcome can feel like a box around their idea.
- S
Social · The Helper
- Where your styles complement each other
- You get things moving. They make sure the people involved are looked after.
- Where your styles may pull in different directions
- You might want to know whether you hit the number while they’re asking how everyone’s holding up.
- E
Enterprising · The Persuader
- Where your styles complement each other
- You both have energy for getting things moving and making decisions.
- Where your styles may pull in different directions
- Two people used to running the meeting can each assume they’re the one in charge.
- C
Conventional · The Organizer
- Where your styles complement each other
- You open up new plans and deals. They make sure whatever’s agreed gets done and written down.
- Where your styles may pull in different directions
- Your new ideas can add commitments to a system they already run.
These interests describe the kinds of work people are drawn to, not how anyone handles closeness or conflict.[2]
With other people
At work
What may feel easy
Plenty of people can read a report. Fewer want to understand what it means and then persuade a room to act on it. That combination can make work feel easy with you: analysis gives the idea substance, while initiative gives it somewhere to go. Because your two interests are across the hexagon from each other, no single neighboring interest naturally supplies both sides; you often have to translate between careful inquiry and visible action.
Where friction may show up
Friction often comes from people who lead with only one of your two sides. Someone focused mainly on Enterprising work may want to launch before the numbers are in. Someone focused mainly on Investigative work may want another month of analysis before making a public commitment. You can understand both arguments, but may become impatient when either side treats its preferred pace as the only responsible one.
What they might bring
A deeper analysis when the decision is premature—or a clear push toward the decision when analysis has become a shelter.
When you are much alike
Two people with this combination can each arrive with a well-reasoned map of where the project should go. The disagreement may look like a debate about evidence or strategy, while underneath it is also a question of whose judgment gets to steer.
Research behind this panel
A meta-analysis of work groups found that conflict about each other, or about how the work gets done, went with worse group results, while disagreeing about the task itself was not strongly tied to worse performance[C22]. A team can challenge an idea without attacking a colleague. The distinction becomes harder to maintain when criticism is vague, personal, or tied to status.
Work interests rarely stay in one lane. Plenty of people are drawn to interests on both sides of the hexagon[9], which is one reason a single interest pair should be treated as a starting point rather than a complete picture. Overlap can create range: someone may enjoy both structured problem-solving and people-focused work, or both practical action and imaginative exploration. The useful question is not which box wins, but what combination of activities gives the person enough challenge, meaning, and momentum to stay engaged.
People included in the research
Research on teams mixes real workplaces with student project groups, so treat it as a rough guide. A team is also influenced by its manager, incentives, workload, power differences, and whether people have room to work in their own way.
As a friend
What may feel easy
A friend who enjoys debating the news and then wants to do something about it may feel easy to be around. You can move from ideas to plans without having to choose between thoughtful conversation and practical momentum.
Where friction may show up
A friend who researches every option may slow down plans you are ready to make. One who only wants to go may skip the part you enjoy: understanding what you are choosing and why. Two people with this combination can also plan the same trip in two different directions, each assuming the other will eventually see the better route.
What they might bring
Patience when the friend needs time to think—and a good push when thinking has become a way to avoid choosing.
Research behind this panel
In a study of friendship networks, sharing humor, hobbies and interests, and moral beliefs were among the best predictors of feeling close[C24]. Friends do not need identical personalities. They often need enough shared ground to feel understood, enough room for difference to stay interesting, and enough trust that disagreement does not threaten the bond.
Work interests rarely stay in one lane. Plenty of people are drawn to interests on both sides of the hexagon[9], which is one reason a single interest pair should be treated as a starting point rather than a complete picture. Overlap can create range: someone may enjoy both structured problem-solving and people-focused work, or both practical action and imaginative exploration. The useful question is not which box wins, but what combination of activities gives the person enough challenge, meaning, and momentum to stay engaged.
People included in the research
Most friendship studies so far have looked at students. Friendships later in life can carry different pressures, histories, and choices about time, so treat these findings as a starting point rather than a complete picture.
In a relationship
What may feel easy
A partner who enjoys making smart decisions with you may feel natural. The relationship can have both curiosity and movement: you investigate what matters, then turn the answer into a shared next step.
Where friction may show up
Someone who likes extended research may feel rushed by your need to move, while someone who prefers quick calls may feel stalled by your analysis. A partner with the same combination can be an excellent thinking partner, but the two of you may keep refining the plan until the experience you planned for has passed.
What they might bring
A view from the side you might skip—and the willingness to treat it as useful information rather than resistance.
Research behind this panel
In lab experiments, couples who did something new and exciting together rated their relationship higher right after the task, though how long that lasts was not tested[C56]. Novelty may briefly interrupt autopilot and let partners see each other as curious, capable people again; it is not proof that a relationship needs constant excitement to be healthy.
Work interests rarely stay in one lane. Plenty of people are drawn to interests on both sides of the hexagon[9], which is one reason a single interest pair should be treated as a starting point rather than a complete picture. Overlap can create range: someone may enjoy both structured problem-solving and people-focused work, or both practical action and imaginative exploration. The useful question is not which box wins, but what combination of activities gives the person enough challenge, meaning, and momentum to stay engaged.
People included in the research
Most of this research studied married, heterosexual couples in Western countries. One study of the push-pull loop included lesbian and gay couples and found the same link[C12]. Use these findings as useful but incomplete clues, not as a definition of what a relationship should look like.
How a third letter can shade it
A full interest code has three letters. The third is a supporting interest, something to hold on to alongside EI. It may not lead your choices, but it can influence the setting, problems, or people that make the work feel worthwhile.
-
EIREIR
Realistic third
Hands-on, practical, or outdoor work—and something tangible to show for it when you’re done.
-
EIAEIA
Artistic third
Some room for your own ideas, imagination, and a way of doing things that’s distinctly yours.
-
EISEIS
Social third
Time spent directly with people, whether that’s teaching, helping, encouraging, or looking after someone.
-
EICEIC
Conventional third
Clear plans, tidy systems, and dependable follow-through, so everyone knows what’s happening and who’s doing what.
Where EI tends to fit
Here are example jobs with this mix of interests, from O*NET[1]. They are possibilities to investigate, not recommendations. A title can fit your interests while the daily setting, training path, pay, or demands do not fit your life. Each link opens the occupation’s page on O*NET OnLine, where you can explore the work in more detail.
O*NET lists no occupations whose interest code is exactly EI. The list beside this one shows the closest examples, not a verdict about what you can do.
This page includes information from the O*NET 31.0 Database by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (USDOL/ETA). Used under the CC BY 4.0 license. O*NET® is a trademark of USDOL/ETA. Nomigram has modified all or some of this information: scores are rounded and only some fields are kept. USDOL/ETA has not approved, endorsed, or tested these modifications. Credits and licenses
The other Enterprising types
All 30 interest types →- EREnterprising
The Pioneer
Ready to turn a workable idea into something real—and make it pay its way.
- EAEnterprising
The Showrunner
Energized by getting creative projects made and in front of people.
- ESEnterprising
The Ambassador
energized by turning shared energy into movement—especially when the goal matters to people, not just to you.
- ECEnterprising
The Director
Comfortable with a budget in one hand and a plan in the other.
Take the Career assessment and find your type
Rate 30 work activities to identify your interest type. Then see what draws or drains you at work, which jobs to explore, and where a strong interest can narrow what you consider.
Questions
What makes two people easy to be around?
Similarity is less powerful than most compatibility charts suggest. In national studies of married couples in three countries, the resemblance between two people’s personalities explained less than half a percent of relationship satisfaction after each person’s own traits were counted[C1]. Two studies of friends found a similar pattern[C5][C6]. Being alike may make recognition easier, but it does not automatically create trust, care, or a workable daily life.
What each person brings mattered more. Warmth, reliability, and staying steady under stress were linked with the other person’s greater satisfaction[C1][C2]. And the relationship people were actively creating mattered most. Across 43 studies that followed couples for between 2 months and 4 years, feeling appreciated by a partner and believing that partner was committed predicted how the relationship was going better than any personality trait did[C3]. A trait may influence a tendency; repeated responses teach the other person what it is safe to expect.
So read what follows as a set of places to look, not a verdict about a bond. Notice what feels natural, what gets misread, and what each person has to learn to make visible. People also change. In long-term studies in two countries, being in a first serious relationship went with becoming calmer over the years[C33][C34]. A relationship is not only a meeting of two finished personalities; it is also an environment in which habits can strengthen or soften.
Can this tell whether two people will get along?
No. Assessments cannot yet predict whether two people will get along, fall for each other, or last. In two speed-dating studies, more than 100 answers given beforehand could not predict who would be drawn to whom in particular[C7]. A report can offer language for a conversation, but it cannot account for timing, shared circumstances, attraction, repair after conflict, or the many small choices that make someone feel valued.
Can I read this about someone I know?
You can, but treat it as a set of possibilities rather than a description you can assign from a distance. A type page describes a mix of scores, and the person may experience that mix differently from how it looks to you. Ask what fits, what does not, and what you may have been interpreting too quickly.
Where does this come from?
The numbered sources match the table on our method page. The personality statements come from the public-domain International Personality Item Pool, and the percentiles compare your answers with a published open data set of several hundred thousand people. The ones marked C are the studies behind “With other people.”
- 1 O*NET OnLine, U.S. Department of Labor. Career interest definitions and occupation interest codes.
- 2 Nauta, M. M. (2010). The development, evolution, and status of Holland’s theory of vocational personalities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 11–22.
- 6 Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2017). Interest congruence and performance: Revisiting recent meta-analytic findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 138–151.
- 8 Hoff, K. A., Song, Q. C., Wee, C. J. M., Phan, W. M. J., & Rounds, J. (2020). Interest fit and job satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 123, 103503.
- 9 Tay, L., Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2011). People–things and data–ideas: Bipolar dimensions? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(3), 424–440.
- C1 Dyrenforth, Kashy, Donnellan & Lucas (2010). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(4), 690–702. Abstract only DOI
- C2 Malouff et al. (2010). Journal of Research in Personality 44(1), 124–127. Abstract only DOI
- C3 Joel et al. (2020). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(32), 19061–19071. Read the full article DOI
- C5 Yang et al. (2026). Social Psychological and Personality Science. Abstract only DOI
- C6 Körner & Altmann (2023). Journal of Research in Personality 107, 104436. Abstract only DOI
- C7 Joel, Eastwick & Finkel (2017). Psychological Science 28(10). Abstract only DOI
- C12 Baucom, McFarland & Christensen (2010). Journal of Family Psychology 24(3), 233–242. Abstract only DOI
- C22 de Wit, Greer & Jehn (2012). Journal of Applied Psychology 97(2), 360–390. Abstract only DOI
- C24 Curry & Dunbar (2013). Human Nature 24(3), 336–347. Abstract only DOI
- C33 Neyer & Asendorpf (2001). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(6). Abstract only DOI
- C34 Lehnart, Neyer & Eccles (2010). Journal of Personality 78(2). Abstract only DOI
- C56 Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna & Heyman (2000). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(2), 273–284. Abstract only DOI