There is also the matter of members with a low need for openness. These members will often not only be closed about their own feelings and perspectives, but also uncomfortable about anyone else doing much sharing. On the airplane, they are likely to request a change in seats – or certainly put on their headphones or pretend to fall asleep. Within a group or organization, they often will consider any open sharing of feelings or offering of observations about group functioning to be disruptive of the group’s work on the task: “What’s going on here, we’re not one of those damnable therapy groups. Keep your feelings to yourself—or take them home and share them with your [spouse], not with us!”
The role played by closed-up members of the group often creates a barrier to the transition of the group to team. As I have already noted, one of the widely accepted guidelines for group process consultants is that the level of overall trust (and openness) in a group is no greater than that of the group member who is least trustful (and least open). As this person goes, so goes the group. As Amy Edmonson (2018) has recently reminded us, organizational safety is very important. The 20th Century strategy of “playing it safe” doesn’t align with a VUCA-Plus environment. Too many unknowns swirl around us for us to play it safe. Success for Edmonson requires the creation of a safe environment that allows for innovative ideas, newly identified challenges, and slowed-down problem-solving (Kahneman, 2011). The closed-up member of a group is particularly sensitive to the lack of safety in their group. In many ways they serve as the “canary in the coal mine.” They sound an “alarm” (often quietly) indicating that things are not “safe.”
It is quite a challenge to bring this closed-up member of the group or organization to a point where they are sufficiently trusting regarding the intentions and interpersonal competencies of other members to become a bit more open. It will get even worse if they are coerced to be more open (by being repeatedly called on to share their feelings or observations) or are manipulated in an effort by other members to encourage openness (by effusively praising the closed member for sharing a bit of themselves). The best approach to take involves adopting a disciplined and appreciative approach in working with this member of the group or organization. In many cases, this involves acknowledgement of their discomfort (as a canary) and then finding ways to increase safety in the group. When the reticent disclosure does voluntarily offer some observations (usually task-related), one or more members of the group or organization can not only thank them for their observations but also briefly comment, in an articulate appreciative manner, on how this observation has actually contributed to group or organizational functioning. The observation has helped to move the group toward successful completion of the task. Not too much attention and not too little attention is given to the reticent member. A bit of Goldilocks once again.
Case Studies of Openness: As I have done regarding inclusion and control, I will share several stories about openness that comes from my own consulting career. I turn first to work with a leadership team in a major American bank. I was called in by a Senior Vice President who was recruited from another corporation to shake things up in this division of the bank. He was to provide some assertive leadership by driving the vice presidents working under him to be both more productive and more innovative (his bank was losing out to another major bank that had introduced new banking practices and was increasing its share of the banking market).
Download Article 1K Club
