Question re: OS bias toward extroverts and activists

Linda Olson LINDA_OLSON at HP-SantaClara-om12.om.hp.com
Thu Oct 16 15:09:10 PDT 1997


Hi everyone,

I've been curious for a very long time about the relationship (if any) of the
appeal to create open spaces and MBTI (Myers-Briggs)preferences?  Has anyone
done any research in this area?  Being an ENFJ OST has great appeal to me for
many reasons and on many levels.  However, living in an ISTJ environment, I've
been wondering how successful open space would be.  Would it be too vague,
non-specific, and general for sensing types?  Would there be too little closure
for most Js?  It seems to me that open space is an ENFP's dream for being in the
world?  Comments, thoughts on this?  I'm so glad someone has raised this issue!

Best regards,

Linda Olson
Hewlett-Packard

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Question re: OS bias toward extroverts and activists
Author:  Non-HP-jeffa (jeffa at tmn.com) at HP-PaloAlto,mimegw6
Date:    10/15/97 11:33 PM


>Any thoughts? ideas? suggestions? reactions?
>I am especially interested in hearing from the "reflective introverts"
>in our group -- if there are any ;) -- to see how you feel about the
>ability of OS to address these needs and concerns.....

Well! Very interesting! As a Certified Reflective Introvert I've been
waiting for someone to ask us this question. ;)

I want to say that one of the things I have loved about Open Space is the
law of two feet: the freedom and responsibility to follow my intuition
wherever I am led.

Open Space becomes an opportunity to not DO anything - I don't have to go
to any sessions - but rather to sit (like a butterfly, I suppose) off to
the side, have a few deep conversations with one person at a time, meditate
and pray for all of us who gather around this important theme, and wait for
that one truth which I might offer to the circle at evening news or during
the closing.

Open Space may not feel inviting to a CRI who encounters it for the first
time: finding oneself in a room full of extroverts clamoring for space on
the blank wall, and assuming that the only way to be "heard" is to offer a
session or to grab the mike during a large group circle. Because it takes
time to learn how to be in Open Space, it also takes time for a group to
learn how to draw forth the wisdom of each person.

Over time I have experienced that Open Space supports me to be myself. And
I have learned how to be "heard" in Open Space. And I have learned that
being heard is not always the most important thing!

However, if being heard is important, I have seldom been explicitly and
personally invited by anyone in Open Space to share my thoughts on an
important topic. We rely on the skill and attentiveness of the convenors of
groups, and the industry of those who do not feel heard to find ways to
speak out.

Is there a culture of "allowing" (whatever happens is the only thing that
could have) which assumes that there is space and time for everyone, but
doesn't make this assumption explicit to the group? Do we make extra effort
to see to it that quiet people have the space and time to share their
wisdom? Do we subtly expect that each person will need to empower
themselves to have their voice heard?

As a facilitator I find myself taking more time during the agenda setting,
setting a quiet tone, avoiding the circus atmosphere that others prefer,
and being more painstaking about the value of each person being able to
write something to place onto the wall. I am attracted to offering simple
group facilitation training and tools (e.g. "talking circle" stones) to
those who are interested. And if there is "dazibao" - a graffiti wall to
write down insights, comments, etc. during the event - I want to bring what
has been written into the circle to be spoken, as well as published into
the notes.

Thanks for this opportunity. I look forward to what others have to share.




More information about the OSList mailing list