Openness

Openness

Like agreement, openness is one of five factors in the Big-5 personality inventory, developed and popularized by Goldberg in 1981. Openness for me however has quite the behavioural component to it, that despite someone's predisposition, is quite essential in the human services world, particularly in the area in which I work, foster care. I think that it's by no mistake that there is a plethora of information on open adoption principles internationally. To date, there are literally thousands of articles since the 1980's which utilize "open adoption" somewhere in their title. A deep dive into many of these articles tells me that there's a central theme at play here, that openness is key to success. If we measure success in better loved experiences for children, more stability for adoptive parents, less shame for adopted kids, greater integrity for biological parents, and better outcomes for children across health, mental health, educational, and vocational aspects, then it appears that evidence is clear, openness is the way. Openness quite consistently means that the adoptive and biological parents know of one another and have enough information on the other to establish and work toward having an even keeled relationship for the sake of the children. In this manner, the child doesn't need to harbour the weight of mystery that can take root deep in one's psyche, as it did around the world until the 1970's. For me, this is the same philosophical sentiment of openness that is transposed almost directly from the well-established literature of the devastating nature of "parental alienation", whereby one parent or caregiver has such animosity that the child feels pressured to take sides and repress their feelings. Regrettably, nobody has worked out how to resolve parental alienation. Hitherto however, the problem of closed adoption has been solved insofar as it's possible to solve any human issue.It's truly the only social mechanism which seeks to balance rights on all sides over a long-term basis. It seems to be an accepted truism that an open relationship between adoptive parents and biological ones who've lost their child often due to State removal, works best for the child. It however never ceases to amaze me how adoptive parents can summon the openness requisite of accepting, and embracing parents who've, at time, committed atrocities toward their child at one point in their life. The older the child is when they enter care, the harder time the children have, and thus I would posit, the more open their carers are needed to be. If we set the benchmark at adoptive carers, embracing and loving parents who've committed atrocities, then anything else falls short of what children deserve. We know this, however how we solve this problem is a significant one that's almost certainly bound to call practitioners a sense of cognitive dissonance; after all, how does anyone rationalize accepting barely good enough situations, when we know kids deserve better?

It's a situation further compounded by two things for me: attachment, and resources. Gabor Mate discusses how children will often attach in rather disorganized ways when they've had significant traumas at a young age. In foster care, I see this looking like kids attaching very strongly to people who provide residence for them despite their caregiver’s lack of apparent care. I've known carers who've hit kids, sexually assaulted them, neglected them, and psychologically ruined children, and yet, I've seen children in the care of those same carers have real problem with being taken away from their abusive carers. The trauma of this, compounded with their disorganized attachment, and on top of their original removal trauma from their parents, is almost too much. Clinging to the hope of love and affection, is beautiful. And yet it is truly a sad thing to behold. In the same way a sole green leaf sprouts from a devastating forest fire however, children can bounce back in remarkable ways. They can process, learn, grow, and re-attach once more. The work needed to do so varies immensely, but it is far from impossible. As I often say to my team, we owe it to these kids to make their time just a little bit less rubbish. And that they do, and I'm so very proud of them continuing to show love and compassion to these kids, even when they're pushed away.

As I cited earlier, openness is key, and yet, I find no single personality link to the plethora of research around the subject in the sector. Why? Surely, it's logical! See, as I said earlier, the other problem going hand in hand with attachment, is resources. We don't have enough people who 'care' to get picky at who we do have is the Theory. I recently wrote a proposal for a study to a key university in my State, having it rejected due to it being too deficit based on its hypotheses; that openness is a key personality attribute we need to screen for. I accept this in truth, I just haven't yet worked out what to do about it other than leaning on my strengths and reframing this deficit into optimism. I'm in the process of developing an assessment tool for carers which I hope will pave the way for greater understanding and metrics that seasoned practitioners can use to work out how to leverage good outcomes. See, carers are all amazing at the beginning. If they can get through the gruelling assessment and training, they're close to altruistic already. Like all of us however, months and years later, dealing with a child who refuses to love you back can take a very sincere toll. If we can gain more knowledge about our own internal defaults, then I hope that we may be able to change our behaviours, to step back in the hands of a safe case manager or social worker, detach, reflect, and move forward. I do not hope to screen people out, rather learn more about everyone and lean on their strengths whilst at the same time targeting what may bring people unstuck and use wisdom to necessitate personal change for them. If they cannot, then should they proceed? Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but at least there is integrity in the outcome either way.

When it comes to working with others, openness seems to be keen too. From using my qualifications in project management, I can assert that the Project Manager's Body of Knowledge is full of recommendations around collaboration and communication. From reading Ginny Rometty’s book (CEO of IBM), I can hear that integrity and openness are key, especially in communicating significant messages around change, which she was famous for doing individually with handwritten personalized notes to hundreds of people at a time.

In leading my own teams, I too can see that openness makes people drawn to you. The more vulnerable and open you can be, the more people are inclined to feel along with you on the journey, that they're safe enough to want to build a meaningful connection with you.

So, what are the cons, surely there are some?! Any personality examination will note that both David Bus and Jordan Peterson are quick to point out that personality is a continuum for an evolutionary psychological reason, and that there are selection reasons why low openness would exist at the same time as high openness in the trait sense. Jordan's course on personality would illustrate quite articulately, that openness can lead to risk taking behaviour, that low openness therefore is akin to conservative natures. This end of the spectrum is composed of people who are predictable, measured, content, and safe. Not so bad at all I say!

What's the sweet spot? Whatever your natural tendencies, as a professional, you owe it to yourself to know yourself, and work towards harmony and balance. Know why you may do things, and at times, employ the opposite to your contented feelings, to do something that benefits others. That's how you get respect. By exercising discipline and forcing yourself to do things for others, that stretch you to your limits.

If the sweet spot is a behavioural control, we may be able to exert over our inner proclivities, then are there any remaining barriers to parse? Turns out, there's a big one I can think of, and that's failure. See, as far as I can tell, those who are receptive to feedback, move through their mistakes, and don't dwell on their missteps, these are the ones who are open. Open to learn. Open to grow and hear learnings from others. They’re the ones willing to let their kids do the same, unafraid to let others views temper their fluid approach to parenting. But then fail their kids may. Not raise to the bars we'd like to see them raise to. Not break the cycle like we know they can. It may be that any caregiver’s low neuroticism and high conscientious traits may moderate this effect somewhat, allowing something else to run off, but truly, I think something else is key here. See those who practice openness behaviourally, regardless of whether it's a trait they are high in, come alongside the children in their care. They listen, they negotiate, they compromise, and they put their own egos aside in favour of others. As two of my favourite authors, Gabor Mate and Gordon Neufeld would say, they're good at, "holding onto their kids", by using meaningful, earned attachment.

Openness is apparently quite key in the human services world, particularly within the realm of foster care. We need and need to value people of all types. People low in openness bring us great solace, but we must strive for openness with fostered children to uphold their sanctity and give them the best chance they deserve.

This week's literature review

Parkeh et. al (2023) led a massive US study, looking at a sample size of 1.7 million adoptions over 11 years, to observe that permanency by way of adoption, comes 17% more of the time to older caregivers than younger ones where substance use was a precursor to removal. I find this an interesting statistic, but not all together unsurprising given the effect size. I imagine that 17% would be just about right, allowing for older couples to have their own children and experiences in life, to perhaps exercise a greater level of openness toward fostered children. Although a small percentage, 17% is a whole lot of kids that are impacted in just one country. Perhaps in this sense of openness, acceptance, non-judgmental attitude, and a forgiving attitude are key factors leaning toward a greater sense of permanency for kids. What if the 17% is an indicator, the tip of an iceberg, on the feelings of love and belonging that subsist below the surface for kids in care who never quite achieve adoption. My experience tells me that it's at least possible and reinforces for me that we should be forever questioning and striving for greater breadth of understanding and open attitudes.

Parekh, R., Sieger, M.L., Elsaesser, C. et al. The Association Between Permanency and Length of Time in Foster Care for Children with Older Adult Foster Caregivers: Children Removed Due to Substance Use Behavior. Child Youth Care Forum (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-023-09742-z