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 (je...@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.