I have also heard this concern, and heard that it favours men over women, the dominant group over the sub-groups--no matter what the situation.
My experience, however, is usually just the opposite. If (and this is the big if for those facilitating) the theme is clear and the parameters for action are clearly stated by the sponsors--anyone who wants to pursue an idea has the ability to do so. I led one 550 person two day open space where many of those who came for the first time spoke during the closing. They had expected to come to this large meeting and have little to do or say. They expected that the "old boys" who knew how to work the system would do most of the talking and they the listening. In Open Space, it was just the opposite. Their views were taken seriously, they could create the agenda as they wished. Over the the full two day event, this help them build the confidence to become active participants. In fact, after the event, the "old boys" were quite angry they they had not dominated the conference and its business like they were used to. I think this kind of comment comes more from people used to "facilitating" everyone's participation. Much of facilitation emphasises the facilitator shaping the process to force inclusion. That's why the critique of manipulation so often gets tied to process facilitation. Yes, people have to take initiave in Open Space in order for things to happen, but that is how it works. The initiave of the facilitator, in the long run, is not what leads to action in a particular situation or organization. I am an introvert on the MBTI and I love being in Open Space--I know many others that do as well. Larry
