In some cases (perhaps most cases) an important distinction must be drawn between openness about task-related issues, openness about relationships, and openness about the operations of the relationship, group or organization—what I have identified as the dimension of Method in a working relationship. All three forms of openness in the TMR Model are critical as the two of us or as members of a group or organization seek to become more effective. We need honest appraisals of how we are doing on the task, how we are doing in relating to one another, and how we are doing in designing the way in which we operate (to meet both task and relational needs). The two of us might decide to meet more often (or less often), meeting in some other place, or prepare an agenda prior to our next meeting. These are all Method related matters. Similarly, with open feedback in place regarding how we are operating as a group, we can consider ways (group methods) in which to do a better job on the task or on our relationships. Hopefully, we can find a way to blend task more effectively with personal and interpersonal issues—making the task more enjoyable to do and the relationships more satisfying precisely because we are getting things accomplished. Proactive openness certainly can be welcomed—just as proactive inclusion and proactive control are of value. Welcome to the pig roast (proactive inclusion). Here is what I think we need to accomplish today (proactive control). I would like to comment on what I think happened during our meeting yesterday (proactive openness).
Reactive Openness can be found among those who wait for others to take on the “interpersonal load.” This often is of little value in sustaining a productive relationship. Fortunately, reactive openness can also be found among those people who are often identified as “good listeners” (or at least patient listeners). These are the folks who will sit there and listen to the stranger sitting next to them on the airplane (rather than putting on their earphones). The reactive openness folks on the airplane will actually ask some questions that produce an even more extended life narrative—but perhaps a narrative that is actually of some interest and relevance to the listener. At a much more productive level, we find the same kind of “good listeners” in our work setting. They might even be “active listeners” who move beyond the encouraging reception of another person’s ideas. They provide clarification, expansion and critical appraisal of these ideas (Bolton, 1986; Mura and Bergquist, 2019; Gallo, 2024).
In a group or organizational setting, those with high reactive openness needs will wait for and even encourage other members of the group or organization to share their feelings, hopes and fears, as well as share observations about group or organizational functioning. While these reactive openness members of the group or organization are not always given the credit that they deserve, the contributions that they make can play a major role in transforming their group or organization into an effectively functioning system. While many groups or organizations would probably only find this role being performed by an outside, highly paid process consultant, there are those groups and organizations that are fortunate enough to have this role being played by one or more of their own members.
While the praise that can be heaped on these reactive members is deserved, it is important to note that the reactive openness member can also create problems in their group or organization. As someone who is participating in this group or organization, their own sharing is critical – beyond their listening and inquiries. We often find that the reactive member of a group or organization ends up feeling abused or ignored. While they will not willingly share their own feelings and observations, they do often expect that someone else in the group will ask them for their perspectives and observations: “Thank you for asking, here is what I have observed/what I am feeling.” The output can be quite voluminous and often quite insightful – if perhaps a little late in the life of the group or organization. The voices that are not actively heard in the first quarter of a meeting often get ignored later in the discussion. Furthermore, the comments being made by the reactive member can sometimes be filled with spite and are offered more as retribution (for not being asked earlier for their “valuable” input): “I could have told you so!”
Download Article 1K Club
