The Johari Window meets Simeon Hearnshaw

The Johari Window appears to be widely used through training and consultancy groups. Using a search engine to find resources about the creation of Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham returns a lot of results leading to websites about building better management skills, working better in teams and similar clichéd corporate goals for better supported and more effective employees. Many of these websites acknowledge that Luft and Ingham’s original work from around 1955 is very difficult to find (ChangingMinds.org, 2007). The Window is a two-by-two grid. The top half holds all the traits that others see in me, while the left half holds the traits I see in myself. The crossover in the top left-hand corner is often called the ‘Arena’ (Davis, 2006) since what I recognise about myself is visible to the public. The bottom right-hand corner has left-over traits selected by neither myself nor any respondents. The bottom left is the ‘Façade’, traits I know of myself which are hidden from others. In the top right are traits others use to describe me but which I have not recognised. I have used two manifestations of the Johari Window through a website. These are the original Johari, based on strengths, and the negative Window or ‘Nohari’ developed by Davis (2006). The traits that can be selected by me and my invited respondents are limited to 55 for each Window.

Creating a personal Johari Window with the assistance of family, friends and acquaintances is a task that relies on honesty and co-operation. It also depends on a willingness to interpret certain phrases broadly and reconsider individual understandings of the request. I sent an email to 25 acquaintances asking them to follow two hyperlinks to the Interactive Johari Window set up by Kevan Davis. At the website I had created a positive and negative window for myself, entering my own opinion of the six trait names that best describe me. The website requires that anyone selecting traits must choose either five or six. Davis (2006, http://kevan.org/joharifaq.html) states that “These implementations follow Luft and Ingham's original framework, specifically that ‘five or six’ words be chosen. Although these are arbitrary numbers, having some sort of minimum and maximum means that participants are forced to consider and compare the adjectives carefully, rather than sweepingly ticking all that apply and obscuring the most important adjectives, or holding back on what could otherwise be an insightful set of attributes.”

Johari Window

Feedback from respondents on the format of the Johari Window included those who believed that a quota of six was too few. Others struggled to select as many as five. That is probably a good support in itself for the conclusion that people see me differently. The respondents ranged from different times and sectors of my life. I encouraged them to maintain anonymity for their sake as well as mine, firstly because I have no great wish to know what specific individuals think of me, and second I believe it is not appropriate for them to be comparing their responses with others’ unless they do it face to face, in the normal course of daily life. This conforms to general ethical expectations in survey research, trying to avoid impact on lives and relationships through providing an avenue for respondents to remain unidentified. This can be especially important in a circumstance like this where, naturally, I would prefer if my parents do not know exactly what my friends think about me.

Across the two variants of the Window, only the negative version provided a single word which more than half of the respondents agreed is a part of my personality. 13 of the 21 respondents used the word cynical to describe me. In face to face feedback one respondent said that he sees my cynicism as justified most of the time, a negativity that comes from experience rather than unwarranted nastiness. Guastello, Rieke, Guastello and Billings (1991) suggest steps leading to cynicism. Their proposal states that cynicism develops from high internal or external expectations which are not reached and leave an individual feeling let down. In 1959 Irving Sarnoff eluded to the variety of definitions that can be appointed to the word ‘cynicism’ or ‘cynic’. Sarnoff defined cynicism as “a negative viewpoint concerning the inherent motivation of human beings”. Following the research of Guastello et al. (1991), it is fair to suggest that this friend may be accurate in suggesting that my cynicism is not without reason.

Nohari Window

One acquaintance who I asked to complete the trait selection has known me for over ten years while never being considered the closest of friends. This person has graduated university with Honours in Psychology, so has some understanding about the process of psychological questionnaires and why it is important to give the best possible response. She sent me a text message (quoted with her permission) explaining “I’m having trouble picking 5 weaknesses! They’re not very [you] words. So they all only represent a [very] slight weakness if any.” This friend was pointing out the difficulty of only having a relatively small number of pre-selected traits, believing that my weaknesses would be better described by other terms. While she had reservations about the negative version, others may have felt the same for the positive Johari. However a factor in the use of the Nohari window is that the 55 words used are supposed to be opposites of the Johari traits. The devisor of the Nohari Window, Kevan Davis, conceded that the traits are only rough opposites (2006). A fresh selection of 55 weaknesses could possibly be more effective than simply using opposites of the original positive traits.

In my opinion, one of the most revealing aspects of the Window is the ‘Façade’ square, which holds traits I see in myself but others do not. For the Nohari, this square was empty as everything I identified was also selected by others. In the Johari, however, were two traits which no others recognised in me. While I believe I am adaptable and proud, others clearly do not see me taking on either of those aspects. In fact, two people said I am inflexible on the Nohari Window. This displays a positive side of Johari Windows in illuminating a weakness I did not see for myself. The four most commonly selected strengths were intelligent, trustworthy, confident and finally energetic which I also nominated. These, and most of the other strengths seen by others and not myself, seem to steer away from both shyness and showiness. If nothing else, the positive attributes others attach to me are spread across a large number of words. As I mentioned above, the dozens of words respondents selected do not include ‘adaptable’ or ‘proud’ which is a suggestion that I have not made those traits clear to acquaintances (University of San Francisco, 2004). To keep those aspects internal means that I am not a completely public person and that I have some mental privacy.

The weaknesses I outlined for myself were all selected by at least one of the respondents, perhaps suggesting that my weaknesses are more visible than my strengths. Chapman (2006) suggests that the large ‘Arena’ square is due to openness on my part and feedback from others. Besides cynicism, the major weaknesses suggested for me were being insecure and overdramatic. Insecurity, like cynicism, could potentially relate to negative experience of human beings. To be seen as overdramatic matches my belief that I am loud, which was supported by a few respondents.

Using the positive Johari Window and the negative Nohari Window, I am able to see different aspects of what others see in me. Equally relevant, I can see the traits that I know for myself but which others do not acknowledge. There are restrictions in the Johari concept, but they solve a useful purpose by forcing a more clearly defined outcome.

Since I have finished my research with the Johari Windows and the results are saved offline, I encourage you to fill it in for yourself, whether you only know me from this blog or you know me personally.

Here are the links:

Nohari Window - Participate

Johari Window - Participate

Or alternatively see the live results as they are changing:

Johari Results

Nohari Results
~

References

Evaluation

Blog 2 Self-evaluation

This is not a fun subject to have been writing about. Especially since, as I pointed out in the introduction, the original research is hard to come by and I was restricted to mostly working from non-empirical sources.

The main reason that the blog was not fun to put together was that it was about me, and what other people think about me. While the lecturer stated that he was comfortable for me to use 1st-person language, it merely made it easier to actually put the words on paper. Either way I feel it was important for me to maintain some objectivity.

My online engagement for this term has been purely in getting the “Windows” together and getting enough people to answer so that it showed results worth commenting on. While I took the topic on because I knew it would be a challenge, and especially when all other assignments and exams kick in, I felt as though it may have been too big a challenge. I would like to have seen some more momentous conclusions about my personality, but there isn’t much that I didn’t already know. Perhaps there needs to be some further looking into it, but the Johari Window has shown me that people see what I think they see.

Statistics:
FK = 12.1
FR = 45.5
Word Count = 1360

Blog 2 References

ChangingMinds.org (2007). The Johari Window. Last retrieved from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/communication/johari_window.htm on 28/10/07.

Chapman, D. (2006). Johari Window Model. Last retrieved from http://www.businessballs.com/johariwindowmodel.htm on 28/10/07.

Davis, K. (2006). The Interactive Johari Window. Last retrieved from http://kevan.org/johari on 28/10/07.

Guastello, S. J., Rieke, M. L., Guastello, D. D., & Billings, S. W. (1991). Study of cynicism, personality, and work values. The Journal of Psychology, 126, 37-48.

Sarnoff, I. (1959). Reaction formation and cynicism. Journal of Personality, 28, 129-143.

University of San Francisco (2004). Johari Window. Last retrieved from http://www.cps.usfca.edu/324sh/johari.htm on 28/10/07.

Blog 2

I should really really really be asleep now, but I had to post that I'm kinda excited about having finished that 1st blog.

Think I've just signed up to do the JOHARI Window for number 2. Hopefully it's enlightening an doesn't crush my spirits too much. I took a link from wikipedia where a guy has both positive and negative versions of the johari, and i've already sent it out to a bunch of people. Hopefully it fits as a bona fide JOHARI window. http://kevan.org/johari

Hope everyone in the class is satisfied with their first blogs, and comfortable with the "choosing a second one" process.

Intervention Appendices

The question I was answering asked for my understanding of the variables involved. I believe it was important that I conveyed my understanding without making it my opinion. As in any research assignment, I had to be clear that anything I put into words could either be supported by evidence or stood as generally accepted knowledge. Perhaps that is a risky assumption – generally accepted does not make an idea universally known and accepted, and in the future I need to acknowledge that more fully.

The post could definitely have improved if it was written retrospectively about this issue – while politicians have been making noises about supporting the communities for decades, the current plan is the first time words seem to have met actions.

I feel as though I made an effective use of available research. There is currently a great deal of opinion and not a lot of empirical research about the intervention plan, so I look forward to seeing some research in the future and hope that it will be positive! In lieu of research about the current issue, I referred to relatable topics such as work with petrol sniffing problems and racism.

My use of APA style was relaxed for this assignment, as it is supposed to also make sense in the situation of a blog. I generally use L. J. Burton (2002), and I believe that I have matched it as much as possible. I decided to use both abstract and introduction as unlabelled intro paragraphs, to avoid confusion (split by the concept map). In doing that I needed to say different things in each, but I believe the summary-nature of those paragraphs still meets the general style. Unfortunately correct indentations in the reference list don't format too well on this kind of text field.

As I understand it, I came close to the readability targets: FK = 12.2, FR = 39.2. My paragraphs were shorter than I usual write (<130 words per par.) for kindness to the reader and to maintain some kind of attention. I also stayed inside the word limit, with 1371 in the main body of the blog.

In terms of online engagement, I believe that I adjusted my writing style for the post to make it more internet-friendly, taking into consideration that more school-age children, people with English as 2nd language etc wouldn’t follow the way I write naturally. I usually like to be grammatically precise and I prefer using longer, more descriptive words. That itself is restricted by the readability analysis, which made a challenge for me.

My interaction with classmates through blogs has been limited. My post about Rwanda (http://sociallyunaware.blogspot.com/2007/08/ghosts-of-rwanda-tangents.html) was responded to by Ndekezi, and I felt it important to acknowledge that with my own comment, and recommend him to any others reading it. I am torn because I am passionate across a huge variety of areas, but having chosen my topic it was important to focus and look up the opinions of others – while not many in this class have taken up the subject, people everywhere have it very strongly in their minds. The one comment I definitely remember making for another student is here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6348947234907771962&postID=7257011567064836259

Intervention Reference List

Australian Psychological Society (2007). Federal Government intervention in NT Indigenous communities misguided. Retrieved August 24, 2007, from http://www.psychology.org.au/news/media_releases/13July2007

Bornholt, L.J. (2002). Thoughts, feelings and intentions to learn: Attitudes by beginning teachers towards Aboriginal peoples. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 295–309.

Halloran, M. J. (2007). Indigenous Reconciliation in Australia: Do Values, Identity and Collective Guilt Matter? Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17, 1–18.

Mellor, D. (2003). Contemporary racism in Australia: The experiences of Aborigines. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 474. Retrieved August 24, 2007, from http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/474

Pedersen, A., Clarke, S., Dudgeon, P., & Griffiths, B. (2005). Attitudes toward Indigenous Australians and asylum seekers: The role of false beliefs and other social-psychological variables. Australian Psychologist, 40, 170 – 178.

Preuss, K., & Brown, J. N. (2006). Stopping petrol sniffing in remote Aboriginal Australia: key elements of the Mt Theo Program. Drug and Alcohol Review, 25, 189 – 193.

Shah, S. (2002). Judge Rules Rape of Aboriginal Girl 'Traditional'. Retrieved September 2, 2007, from Women’s eNews (29/11/02 edition): http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1126

Snow, S.G. (2000). Pathways in the periphery: Tourism to Indigenous communities in Panama. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 732-749.

Through young black eyes (2005). A handbook to protect indigenous children from the impact of family violence and child abuse. Published by SNAICC. Retrieved September 2, 2007, from http://www.snaicc.asn.au/publications/documents/TYBE_05_whole.pdf

Intervention in Indigenous Communities (Blog 1)

The purpose of this piece is to raise awareness of the ways in which Indigenous communities may be supported when confronting child abuse. Positive action involving long-term relationships and trust are crucial. It is important to note that the roots of issues in these communities include poor treatment by colonisers and their descendants from Europe. Before colonisation there were customs that kept behaviour more safe. The impact of contact with outsiders needs to be monitored, whether they are tourists or authorities like police and teachers. The motivations for different actions are also an integral part of this research.

On the 13th of July 2007, the Australian Psychological Society (APS) made a public statement about the Federal Government’s decision to place many Northern Territory Indigenous communities under the administration of outsiders. The APS statement suggested certain concerns. The communities involved would benefit less from the immediate intervention than they would from a more gradual development founded through trusting relationships (APS, 2007). Research into the treatment of Indigenous people and action in communities has shown that such a positive approach can be successful. It has also shown the different impacts that more reactive and restrictive approaches can have on the communities.

Among the issues that make Federal Government action appear necessary in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, is the occurrence of sexual assault against children. In certain cases it has been claimed that historical culture makes it acceptable for older men to force sex with girls. A specific example is when families have arranged the girl’s marriage to a man who raped her when she was 15. In a news report addressing this claim, Professor Judy Atkinson was quoted as saying that traditional Aboriginal customs were “bastardized and brutalized” (Shah, 2002, par. 9). The report states that Atkinson has written books about endemic violence against Aboriginal women. Here the report refers to colonisation by the British, when Aborigines were treated removed from their homes and families, leaving them unable to continue their way of life.

Before European contact, arranged marriage would mean that the girl usually had older co-wives to protect her and the open camp lifestyle would prevent acts of violence (Shah, 2002). However this culture, and the negative modern manifestation of sexual assault, is over-ruled across Australia by the legal age of consent. Young people under 16 years of age cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse with significantly older individuals in the Northern Territory (Through Young Black Eyes, 2005). When this law is violated and children are sexually assaulted, politicians will attempt to stop the criminal behaviour. This is logical, since politicians are meant to serve the people of the area.

The APS release criticised an “interventionist short-term approach” (2007, par. 1) like the Government’s current plan. It promotes trust and partnerships being built. This is quite different from the sudden increase in police numbers and government control. A success story in terms of helping build communities during intervention is the Mt Theo Program (Preuss & Brown, 2006). Mt Theo is an Indigenous Northern Territory community where many people were involved in petrol sniffing. The pastime is addictive and unhealthy, widespread through some communities in central Australia. 40 deaths have been connected to petrol sniffing since 1998.

It is said that the program taken up at Mt Theo worked for several reasons. A clear statement from the outset was that neither Aborigines nor outsiders could fix the problem without the other group. It was also believed that the people who would benefit from the program should be able to claim it as something they had done. They would be stewards of their program, giving them ownership and pride in it. A final major factor toward success was the design of the program to have continuing impact once the initial fix passed. The program gave the community a positive way to interact, encourage and strengthen the trust between locals, with partnership from outsiders.

A Perth study on the attitudes Australians show to minority groups outlined some false beliefs that are widely held by educated citizens. The researchers found that many Australians believe “Aborigines are more likely to drink alcohol than non-Aborigines” (Pedersen, Clarke, Dudgeon, & Griffiths, 2005, p. 171) and that Aborigines receive more government financial support. The conclusion drawn from the research was that many Australians from Perth hold a negative feeling toward Indigenous Australians (Pedersen et al.). False beliefs about Aborigines lead to a chance that they are not treated as well as others. When police are brought into Indigenous communities for sudden action against a problem, they may have false beliefs of their own. The APS suggests work towards trust and relationships. If false beliefs are strong, it will be hard for them to approach that work.

APS President Amanda Gordon states a need for prevention, not just reaction. Education can be a means toward the goal of prevention. To that effect, it is integral to know how teachers approach students in Indigenous communities. People studying to be teachers are found to have moderate positive and negative ideas of Aborigines (Bornholt, 2002). The positive student teachers generally had more effective responses for short hypothetical scenes read to them. Guilt in the listener also suggested more favourable intentions, and registering guilt suggested that a person would not act against Aborigines. It was mostly only those with negative false beliefs whose intentions were to act against Indigenous people. The conclusion should be that people working in any crisis intervention role with Indigenous communities should be free from negative bias.

It is reasonable to ask why Australia has such clearly defined people-groups that need strong motivation to work to any common goal. Mellor used interviews with a number of Aborigines to gather evidence of specific racism they had experienced, as racism defines people groups (2003). Their responses led Mellor to conclude that most racism was obvious and no different from racism in the past. Other psychologists had suggested that racism takes subtle, covert forms. This possibility may be a factor behind continuing separation of cultural groups. If a major form of racism was ignored because psychologists believed it had been surpassed, it may have continued to act as a divide. Racism appears very differently depending on the individual’s point of view. This example highlights the danger that could arise from only researching one side of a topic. It also shows the bias that comes from simply being on the dominant side of a cultural divide.

Parts of Central Australia are tourism hubs, and often these neighbour Indigenous communities which have gained attention from Federal government. Research with Panama Indians explored the ways tourism can impact on the lives and culture of Indigenous people (Snow, 2000). Environmental damage is assumed when tourists visit, and some cultures lose aspects of their identity. However some cultures use the tourism to refresh their social presence and unique life. Part of this is the money that can be injected into the local community. As Snow suggests, another reason is that tourists travel to see Indigenous cultures. As an incentive it can be argued for or against, but there can be value for Indigenous communities. In some cases, it could be worthwhile to encourage more outside visitor to the area. In others, the same idea could be highly detrimental.

Reconciliation is a concept used to describe a possible future understanding and trusting relationship between all people of Australia. At least three quarters of Halloran’s participants showed support for reconciliation in some form (2007). As with Bornholt (2002), Halloran found that collective guilt on the part of Australians suggested a stronger tendency to positive action and treatment of Aboriginal people.

The part that guilt plays, in beginning the plan for any action, is large. Issues that lead to the guilt can be as major as widespread child sexual abuse (APS, 2007). In the Northern Territory of Australia, the plan that is going ahead must be re-evaluated on a regular case-by-case basis. Each community will be different and will receive the Federal action in a unique way. In general, research suggests that those taking authority should build partnerships and foster trust in the community, including themselves in the process. The short-term intervention appears to be flawed, and this calls for a more extensive approach.

~

References

Appendices