137MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, May 2010In

137MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2,
May 2010
Introduction
The role of interpersonal communication
has never before been as much important
as in today's modern organisations. As
s o c i a l s y s t e m s , o r g a n i s a t i o n s a r e
activated and its various elements are
c o o r d i n a t e d w i t h t h e h e l p o f
communication. On the contrary, the cost
of bad relationships could be enormous
f o r a n e n t e r p r i s e . T h e w h o l e
organization can come to the brink of
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a
Public Sector Undertaking
Shreekumar K. Nair †
Neelima S. Naik ††
T r a i n i n g i n t h e d o m a i n o f s o f t s k i l l s s u c h
a s i n t e r p e r s o n a l
communication has assumed lot of importance for organizations
in
recent times. However, desirable changes in the process of
managerial
communication call for proper knowledge about the prevailing
communication patterns and interpersonal styles adopted by the
executives. This paper presents the results of a study undertaken

to
explore and understand the interpersonal communication
patterns
of managers working in a public sector company based on the
Johari
Window Model. Using the Personnel Relations Survey, data was
collected from 140 middle level managers belonging to various
departments of the company. Results indicated a majority of the
managers to be wanting in exposure as well as feedback in their
interpersonal dealings with colleagues and superiors. Also, age
was
not found to have a bearing on the level of exposure as well as
feedback of the managers. Implications of these and other
related
findings for managerial training are discussed in the paper.
† Shreekumar K. Nair is Professor of OB & HRM at the
National Institute of Industrial Engineering
(NITIE), Mumbai.
†† Neelima S. Naik is Professor at the National Institute of
Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai.
collapse if relationships are not given
due importance. Studies have shown
communication breakdown as the single
greatest barrier to corporate excellence
(e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1973). It is,
therefore, imperative for any progressive
organisation to understand the various
f a c e t s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d t h e i r
relevance for positive organisational
outcomes. Over the years, organisational
theorists have developed several models

May 2010
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector
Undertaking
t o e x p l a i n s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s o f
interpersonal communication. Some of
these models have become quite popular
among management practitioners as
they have been found to be useful not
only in improving communication, but
also in developing healthy interpersonal
relationships at the workplace.
The key determinant of the quality of
relationships between people is their
interpersonal communication styles.
Individuals have stable, distinct and
preferred ways of communicating with
others, which become their interpersonal
communication styles. In fact, these are
learned behaviours acquired by the
individuals through the process of
socialization. The manner in which
people monitor, control, filter, distort,
d i v e r t , g i v e a n d s e e k i n f o r m a t i o n
r e l e v a n t t o a n y r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l
determine the quality of relationships
which exist among them. In short, the
concept of interpersonal communication
style serves as a central mechanism
underlying the quality of relationships,
t h e n a t u r e o f c o r p o r a t e c l i m a t e ,
managerial effectiveness, and the level

of corporate excellence (Hall, 1973).
One of the most popular yet simplest
models to explain a specific facet of
interpersonal communication styles is
t h e J o h a r i W i n d o w m o d e l ( L u f t &
Ingham, 1955; Luft, 1969; 1970; 1982).
The Johari Window model is used as a
framework for helping people to practice
the process of giving and receiving
feedback. As a result, they learn to be
more accepting of themselves and others.
In the organizational context, this model
is very useful in bringing about desirable
changes in employees' interpersonal
communication styles.
The Johari Window
The term 'Johari' is an acronym made
from the first names of Joseph Luft and
Harry Ingham (1955), who developed the
Johari Window model for use in training
p r o g r a m m e s t o u n d e r s t a n d g r o u p
processes. Subsequently, the Johari
model became popular in the HRD area
as a communication model analysing the
way people give and receive information
about themselves and others. The model
presents a four-paned window as shown
in Figure 1. The two columns represent
the 'self'. The first column is for "things I
know about myself,' and the second
column is for "things I do not know about
myself.' The rows represent 'others' or

the 'group' one belongs to. The first row
contains "things others know about me,"
and the second row contains "things
others do not know about me."
The Johari model is dynamic in nature.
The capacity to move the horizontal and
v e r t i c a l l i n e s w h i c h p a r t i t i o n t h e
interpersonal space into four regions
gives individuals enough control over
the quality of their relationships with
o t h e r s . A s p e r t h e m o d e l , o n e c a n
consciously establish interpersonal
relationships characterized by mutual
u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d i n c r e a s e d
e f f e c t i v e n e s s b y e n g a g i n g i n t w o
behavioural processes namely, Exposure
and Feedback. If an individual behaves
i n a n o n - d e f e n s i v e , t r u s t i n g , a n d
potentially risk taking manner with
May 2010
others, he may be considered as openly
s h a r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a n d t h e r e b y ,
c o n t r i b u t i n g t o i n c r e a s e d m u t u a l
understanding. This process is termed
as Exposure. It involves the candid
disclosure of one's feelings, and factual
i n f o r m a t i o n i n a c o n s c i o u s a n d
righteous attempt to share. The Feedback
process entails an active solicitation by
an individual of information that he

feels he does not have, but others have.
T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a n i n d i v i d u a l
actually receives feedback depends on
the willingness of others to share their
information about him. Therefore, a
climate of mutual exposures becomes
necessary for feedback to happen.
Figure 1: The Johari Window
The amount of information contained in
each of the four panes in the model is
depicted by the varying sizes of the
panes. The information, in fact, depends
on the level of disclosure and exchange
of feedback in the group in which an
individual is interacting. The Arena
contains information that the individual
knows about himself and about which
the group also knows. It is an area
characterised by free and open exchange
of information between the individual
a n d o t h e r s . T h e s i z e o f t h e A r e n a
increases as the level of individual –
individual or individual – group trust
and communication increases.
The Blind Spot is the information known
about the individual by others, but
which the individual does not know
about himself. Blind Spots are the things
people are not aware that they are
communicating to others. Information in
the Blind Spot may be in the form of body
language, habits or mannerisms, tone of

voice, style, etc. Persons with large Blind
S p o t s c a n b e n e f i t f r o m s o l i c i t i n g
feedback from others.
The Façade is the area of informa tion that
the individual knows about himself but
which, for some reason, he withholds
from others. This information may
include perceptions, opinions, feelings,
judgements, prejudices, etc. People may
have various motives for maintaining
secrets. While some people may fear
r e j e c t i o n o r r i d i c u l e , o t h e r s m a y
deliberately hold back information in
order to manipulate others.
The Unknown contains facts about the
individual which neither he nor others
know. Some of this information may be
lying so deep that the individual may
never become aware of it in his lifetime.
However, information which is just
below the surface of awareness to both
the individual and others can be made
public through an exchange of feedback.
S u c h i n f o r m a t i o n m a y i n c l u d e
Undertaking
May 2010
childhood memories, ambitions, values,

etc.
There are four possible individual
profiles presented by the model. These
profiles are based on the percentile
scores obtained on the exposure and
feedback dimensions. The percentile
score of 50 is considered as the cut-off
point on the exposure scale as well as
feedback scale for deciding the window
type. The first is the Ideal Window with a
l a r g e A r e n a a n d s m a l l B l i n d S p o t ,
Façade, and Unknown. This type of
w i n d o w ( f o r a n i n d i v i d u a l ) i s
c o n s i d e r e d t o b e d e s i r a b l e i n a n y
significant relationship. A person of this
description would be relatively easy for
others to understand and interact with,
resulting in more honest and stable
relationships. Generally, the size of the
Arena increases as the level of mutual
trust increases and people openly give
and receive feedback.
The second profile, which consists of a
large Façade and a small Arena, is
named as Interviewer. A person with this
window would be comfortable asking
questions of others (soliciting feedback)
but would not like to reveal personal
i n f o r m a t i o n . S u c h i n d i v i d u a l s a r e
comfortable interacting with others but
not when others get inquisitive about
them. Often, other people tend to develop
an attitude of mistrust, suspicion, and
irritation towards such individuals.

The third profile is opposite of the
Interviewer. Named as Bull-in-a-China-
Shop, this window has a large Blind Spot.
Individuals with this profile give a great
deal of feedback but solicit very little.
Their communication is usually in the
form of comments about group issues
and the behaviour of other members.
Such persons are insensitive to the
impact of their behaviour on others or
do not care what others are trying to tell
them. In other words, they either tend to
be poor listeners or they may respond to
feedback in an emotional and defensive
way. In fact, this type of individuals is
less likely to change their behaviour
b e c a u s e t h e y d o n o t k n o w w h a t
behaviours they should change for the
better.
A window depicting a large Unknown
is the fourth profile. With a small Arena
a n d l a r g e U n k n o w n , t h i s t y p e o f
window is aptly termed as Turtle. A
person of this type tends to be the
passive, silent member or “observer” in
the group, neither giving nor soliciting
feedback. Because he is non-committal,
group members may find it difficult to
know such a person’s point of view. In
fact, such a person always strives to
maintain a small Arena by overcoming
the pressure of group norms exerted
against this kind of behaviour.

Thus, the Johari model provides a
meaningful way of conceptualizing the
two key processes (viz., Exposure and
Feedback) underlying interpersonal
interaction. Both of these processes or
behaviours on the part of individuals are
thought to have an element of decision
and purposeful intent. In combination,
these two behaviours constitute their
interpersonal styles, which are amenable
to assessment using the self-report
Undertaking
May 2010
method. Measurements of exposure and
feedback behaviours could be used in
determining an individual manager’s or
even an organisation’s Johari window
configuration (Hall, 1973).
To study the Exposure and Feedback
processes employed by managers in their
r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h s u b o r d i n a t e s ,
colleagues and superiors, Hall (1974)
collected data from 1000 managers from
all over the United States, representing a
cross section of managerial levels and
functions. The Personnel Relations
Survey, an instrument developed by Hall

& Williams (1967) was used to collect
the data. One of the significant findings
o f t h e s t u d y w a s t h a t t h e t y p i c a l
manager’s use of Exposure is directly
influenced by the amount of power he
possesses relative to other parties in the
relationship. Moving from relationships
with subordinates through relationships
with colleagues to relationships with
superiors, the extent of Exposure use was
found to steadily decline. There was less
use of Feedback process compared to
Exposure process in the managers’
relationships with their subordinates.
However, these managers reported a
significant preference for Feedback
seeking behaviours over Exposure in
their relationships with peers as well as
superiors.
Objectives of the Study
Available literature throws very little
light on the communication patterns of
Indian public sector executives using the
t w o d i m e n s i o n s o f e x p o s u r e a n d
feedback. Also, hardly any empirical
study could be traced which has made
use of the Personnel Relations Survey
(PRS) instrument to get a graphical
representation of the Johari Window
profiles of Indian executives. In fact, very
few studies were found to have used the
Johari Window model to understand the
communication patterns of executives

belonging to a particular company,
although the model has been extensively
used in executive training.
In this context, it was felt worthwhile to
p r i m a r i l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e J o h a r i
Window profiles of executives working
in a single public sector enterprise. It was
also of interest to know the overall profile
o f t h e g r o u p o f e x e c u t i v e s w h o
participated in this study. The collective
profile could also give an idea about the
company’s Johari window profile. The
present study was purely exploratory in
nature since no definite conclusions
regarding the Johari windows of public
sector executives working in different
industries were available from earlier
studies. Further, it was considered
i m p o r t a n t t o k n o w w h e t h e r t h e s e
executives who were differing in terms
o f a g e a s w e l l a s e x p e r i e n c e h a v e
d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f e x p o s u r e a n d
feedback. The question was whether
these executives (say, low and high
groups based on age and experience)
have the same type of Johari Window or
whether they have distinctly different
windows.
Methodology
Sample: The study was conducted on an
incidental sample of 140 middle level

Undertaking
May 2010
managers from different units of a single
company. This company is a leading
public sector undertaking involved in the
m a n u f a c t u r i n g o f p r o f e s s i o n a l
electronics. Those who participated in
the study were attending some of the
short-term Management Development
P r o g r a m m e s o r g a n i s e d a t N I T I E ,
Mumbai. These managers belonged to
diverse functional departments of the
c o m p a n y s u c h a s m a n u f a c t u r i n g ,
development & engineering, inspection
& testing, communication, finance, sales,
administration, HR, etc. The managers
i n t h e s a m p l e t u r n e d o u t t o b e
predominantly male with only 8 female
managers. The age of the managers
ranged from 30 to 60 years with a mean
age of 50.68 and SD of 6.65.
Instrument: The instrument used in this
study is known by the name, Personnel
Relations Survey. It is a paper-and-pencil
instrument designed by Hall & Williams
( 1 9 6 7 ) f o r u s e w i t h m a n a g e r s . T h e
P e r s o n n e l R e l a t i o n s S u r v e y ( P R S )
reveals the preferences of managers for
e x p o s u r e a n d f e e d b a c k i n t h e i r
r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h s u b o r d i n a t e s ,

colleagues and superiors. PRS has been
u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n i n d u s t r y a s a
training aid for evaluating ongoing
relationships and also for providing
personal feedback. In addition, it has
been used as a basic research tool for
assessing prevailing communication
patterns among managers.
There are 20 hypothetical situations
presented in the PRS describing different
interpersonal scenarios involving the
respondent’s subordinates, colleagues
and superiors. For each situation, two
choices namely, A and B, describing two
different courses of action are given. The
respondent has to select from among the
two alternative choices the one that he/
s h e w o u l d n o r m a l l y a d o p t i n t h a t
situation. One of the two alternative
c h o i c e s g i v e n f o r e a c h s i t u a t i o n
represents either exposure or feedback,
which are the two dimensions of the
Johari Window. Thus, only one out of
the two alternative choices is considered
for scoring. On the whole, there are 10
alternatives each for exposure and
feedback randomly distributed in the
scale. The respondent has to rate his
preference for each statement by giving
it a score of 0 to 5 (0 meaning one does
not really believe in that way or believe
strongly about the other member of the
pair). The scores for ‘a’ and ‘b’ must add
up to 5 (i.e., 0 and 5, 1 and 4, 2 and 3, 3

a n d 2 , e t c . ) . I n e s s e n c e , a p a i r e d
c o m p a r i s o n m e t h o d w i t h r e l a t i v e
weights for the pairs is the scoring
method used in the PRS. The raw score
range for both exposure and feedback is
0 to 50.
The PRS gives percentile scores on
exposure and feedback corresponding to
the respective raw scores obtained by the
respondents. The respondent’s window
with the four panes can be drawn using
the percentile scores on exposure and
feedback. If Arena is the largest of the
f o u r p a n e s o r q u a d r a n t s , t h e n i t
represents Profile 1 (i.e., Ideal Window).
If Façade is larger than the other three,
t h e w i n d o w i s o f P r o f i l e 2 ( i . e . ,
Interviewer). In case Blind Spot is the
Undertaking
May 2010
largest, the window is of Profile 3 (i.e.,
B u l l - i n - a - C h i n a - S h o p ) . L a s t l y , i f
Unknown is the largest of all, then it
represents Profile 4 (i.e., Turtle).
Data Collection: The Personnel Relations
S u r v e y w a s a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t h e
managers while they were undergoing

training at NITIE. The questionnaire was
filled by the respondents in the presence
of the investigator. To minimize the
effect of social desirability on the PRS,
the respondents were neither given any
prior information about the Johari model
n o r w e r e t h e y t o l d a s t o w h a t t h e
questionnaire actually measured.
Results & Discussion
This study being exploratory in nature,
r e s p o n s e s o f t h e 1 4 0 m i d d l e l e v e l
m a n a g e r s w e r e a n a l y s e d u s i n g
a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t i s t i c s t o a r r i v e a t
meaningful conclusions about their
interpersonal communication process.
The statistical package used for data
a n a l y s i s w a s S P S S V e r s i o n 1 0 . 0 .
Descriptive statistics such as, score
ranges, means and standard deviations
of the variables considered in the study
were initially computed. These are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Standard
Deviation
Age 30.00 60.00 50.68 6.65
Experience 5.00 42.00 27.78 7.20
Exposure (Raw Score) 11.00 45.00 27.24 7.08

Feedback (Raw Score) 11.00 49.00 28.64 5.88
Exposure (Percentile) 1.00 95.00 39.34 26.11
Feedback (Percentile) 1.00 99.00 36.32 22.86
As can be seen from Table 1, the sample
c o n s i s t e d o f e x e c u t i v e s d i f f e r i n g
considerably in age and experience. As
regards the raw scores on the two Johari
dimensions, it is seen that Feedback
s c o r e i s o n l y s l i g h t l y h i g h e r t h a n
Exposure score. The Feedback score was
not considerably higher than Exposure
score as was observed by Hall (1973) in
his study. Probably, the differences in
time frames and cultural contexts could
account for this observation. It is also
seen that the mean percentile scores on
exposure and feedback for the total
sample are below 50 and thereby, on the
lower side on both dimensions. However,
the percentile score on exposure is
relatively better than that on feedback. It
seems that the executives do not take as
much feedback about themselves from
others as they reveal about themselves
to others.
Undertaking

May 2010
T h e i n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n s a m o n g t h e
variables studied are given in Table 2.
Age of the executives is seen to be
correlating highly with their work
experience. However, age is not seen to
be correlated with either exposure or
f e e d b a c k . T h i s m e a n s t h a t w i t h
increasing age, executives do not seem
to show any corresponding increase in
the use of exposure as well as feedback
i n t h e i r c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o c e s s .
S i m i l a r l y , e x p e r i e n c e i s a l s o n o t
correlating with exposure as well as
feedback, indicating that increase in
work experience do not necessarily result
i n h i g h e r l e v e l s o f e x p o s u r e a n d
feedback in the executives.
Although a linear relationship of age and
w o r k e x p e r i e n c e o n t h e J o h a r i
dimensions was almost ruled out, data
was further analysed to see whether
subgroups formed on the basis of age as
well as experience significantly differed
in their mean exposure and feedback
scores. To begin with, three equivalent
g r o u p s o n a g e ( n a m e l y , l o w - a g e ,
moderate age and high-age groups) were
formed on the basis of the percentile
values, P33 and P67 as the cut-off points.
One-way ANOVA was then done to test
the significance of differences in the
mean scores on exposure and feedback

for the three age groups. But, the F values
were not found to be significant. Similar
analysis was done by forming three
groups based on work experience. This
also did not yield significant F values.
To continue with the subgroup analysis
further, it was decided to consider only
extreme groups on age as well as work
experience for comparison. In other
words, the moderate groups were kept
aside while making the comparisons of
mean scores on exposure and feedback.
Firstly, t-values were calculated for
testing the significance of difference
between the mean scores (on exposure
and feedback) for the low-age and high-
age groups. Both the t-values turned out
to be non-significant. Likewise, t-values
were calculated in respect of the mean
scores on exposure and feedback for the
low-experience and high-experience
groups. In this case also, the t-values
Table 2: Inter-Correlations among the Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Age -
2. Experience 0.87** -
3. Exposure (Raw Score) -0.04 -0.07 -
4. Feedback (Raw Score) -0.07 -0.08 0.39** -

5. Exposure (Percentile) -0.06 -0.09 0.96** 0.42** -
6. Feedback (Percentile) -0.03 -0.03 0.41** 0.95** 0.43** -
** Significant at 0.01 level.
Undertaking
May 2010
were not significant. This shows that age
as well as work experience do not have
a n y i n f l u e n c e o n t h e t w o J o h a r i
dimensions.
R e s u l t s s h o w e d h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s
between the two key dimensions of the
Johari model, i.e., exposure and feedback
– b o t h i n t e r m s o f r a w s c o r e s a n d
percentiles. A look at the model would
make it clear that high correlations
between exposure and feedback scores
can result in a large number of executives
having the Ideal Window and the Turtle
profile. However, in this study, a good
number of executives are having the
latter profile since their scores on both
the dimensions are at the lower end of
the scale.
Table 3: Frequency & Percentage Distribution of the Four

Window Profiles
Type of Window Frequency Percentage
1. Ideal Window 18 12.8572
2. Interviewer 13 9.2857
3. Bull-in-a-China-Shop 26 18.5714
4. Turtle 83 59.2857
I n t h e n e x t s t e p o f a n a l y s i s , t h e
i n d i v i d u a l J o h a r i p r o f i l e s o f t h e
executives were identified based on their
respective percentile scores on exposure
and feedback. The purpose was to
categorise the executives into the four
distinct windows suggested by the
Johari model, viz., (i) Ideal Window, (ii)
Interviewer, (iii) Bull-in-a-China-Shop,
and (iv) Turtle. The percentile score of
50 was considered as the cut-off score
on the exposure scale as well as feedback
scale for deciding the window type. The
n u m b e r a s w e l l a s p e r c e n t a g e o f
executives having each of these four
profiles is given in Table 3. It is seen that
o n l y 1 8 e x e c u t i v e s h a v e t h e ‘ I d e a l
Window’ profile with the percentile
scores on both exposure and feedback
m o r e t h a n 5 0 . I n t h e ‘ I n t e r v i e w e r ’
c a t e g o r y , t h e r e a r e 1 3 e x e c u t i v e s ,
whereas, 26 executives were found to be
having the profile of ‘Bull-in-a-China-

Shop.’ The remaining 83 executives were
found to be of the ‘Turtle’ type.
Figure 2: Johari Window Profile of
Total Sample
Of the four window types, majority of
the executives (i.e., about 59%) are
Undertaking
May 2010
having the Turtle profile, which results
from a combination of low exposure and
feedback scores. On the other hand, the
p e r c e n t a g e o f e x e c u t i v e s h a v i n g a
combination of higher exposure and
feedback scores, thereby falling in the
ideal category is only roughly 13%.
Clearly, the major chunk of about 83% of
the executives, which includes the other
three types, are found to be wanting in
higher levels of exposure as well as
feedback. Further, it is noticed that the
least number of executives (n=13) have
the ‘Interviewer’ profile, whereas, double
this number of executives have the ‘Bull-
in-a-China-Shop’ profile. Both these two
types taken together include executives
who have either lower exposure scores
or lower feedback scores.

Finally, the obtained data was used to
see the collective profile of the entire
sample of 140 executives. The mean
percentile scores for the total sample on
exposure and feedback (i.e., 39.34 and
36.32 respectively) were used to plot the
window. Figure 2 shows the window so
obtained. The window for the whole
group of executives is clearly of the Turtle
type as both the percentile scores are
below 50. In other words, collectively the
executives have a profile with a large
Unknown and small Arena, reflecting an
i m p e r s o n a l a p p r o a c h i n t h e i r
interpersonal relationships. People who
resort to this style have to often face
hostility from other parties. This type of
style seems to indicate behaviours such
as withdrawal, interpersonal anxiety,
safety-seeking, etc. and is often found in
b u r e a u c r a t i c , h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d
o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( H a l l , 1 9 7 3 ) . T h e
predominant use of this style in an
organization reflects the decadent state
of its climate and health. According to
Argyris (1962), a communication process
characterized by low Exposure and low
Feedback results from learned ways of
behaving under oppressive policies and
p r a c t i c e s . T h e r e p e r c u s s i o n s o f a n
impoverished communication process
o n m a n a g e r i a l c r e a t i v i t y a n d
organizational effectiveness are quite
imaginable.

Conclusions
The present study, which was done on a
s a m p l e o f m i d d l e l e v e l e x e c u t i v e s
belonging to a public sector undertaking,
has brought out interesting findings
regarding certain specific aspects of
interpersonal communication. With the
help of the Johari Window model, the
extent of exposure and feedback that
executives use in their relationship with
colleagues was found out and analysed.
On the whole, the executives were found
to be on the lower end of the scales on
both exposure and feedback. In addition,
exposure and feedback scores were
highly correlated. The overall profile of
the sample that emerged was that of
Turtle. Only few executives were found
to have the Ideal Window. Further, age
of the executives was found to have a
h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e i r w o r k
experience. Contrary to our expectation,
age as well as work experience of the
executives was not found to be correlated
w i t h e i t h e r e x p o s u r e o r f e e d b a c k .
Subsequent analysis of subgroups based
on age did not show any significant
differences in the means for exposure as
well as feedback. Similar was the case
with the subgroup analysis based on
Undertaking

May 2010
experience. Thus, age as well as work
experience do not seem to have any
impact on the levels of exposure and
feedback.
The conclusions of this study could be
generalized to apply for middle level
managers working in this public sector
company or similar companies in the
p u b l i c s e c t o r . T h e o n l y p o s s i b l e
limitation of the study could be in terms
of the dependability of the data obtained.
It is presumed that, there was less chance
of the social desirability factor playing a
role in the responses since the data was
collected during the relatively hassle-
free atmosphere of an executive training
programme.
Implications for Training
The model has found applicability in a
wide variety of organizational contexts
such as, engineering teams (Dalton &
Dalton, 1976), government (Crapo, 1986),
food processing (Cook & Macaulay,
1 9 9 3 ) , a n d h e a l t h c a r e ( B l a c k &
W e s t w o o d , 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e t r a i n i n g
implications of the Johari model has also
been elaborated by many researchers
( e . g . , H a n s o n , 1 9 7 3 ; L u k o s e , 1 9 8 5 ;

Pfeiffer, 1996; Hersey et al, 1998). The
model has been generally found to be
h e l p f u l i n k n o w i n g e m p l o y e e s ’
communication styles and in improving
their interpersonal communication
skills.
The findings of this study have probably
helped in identifying the training needs
of the managers in respect of their
interpersonal communication. This
information could be used by the top
m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e c o m p a n y f o r
i n i t i a t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e t r a i n i n g
intervention. In particular, this study
provides a strong case for developing the
two specific communication processes
namely, Exposure and Feedback in the
middle level executives of this public
sector company since the executives are
found to have deficiency in both. To
increase Exposure, executives should be
e n c o u r a g e d t o s h a r e a n d d i s c u s s
organizational matters with relevant
people. To increase Feedback seeking
b e h a v i o u r , e x e c u t i v e s s h o u l d b e
encouraged to accept criticism. Attempts
by the executives to go on the defensive
(in response to genuine and legitimate
criticisms) should be discouraged. When
the executives learn to move information
from the Blind Spot and Façade into the
Arena through the process of giving and
soliciting feedback, they increase the size
of their Arena. Using this process, new

information can also be moved from the
Unknown into the Arena. It is, however,
primarily necessary that executives be
sensitized about the need to improve
t h e i r E x p o s u r e a n d F e e d b a c k
behaviours. Executives must accept the
fact that the training can help them learn
to be more accepting of themselves and
o t h e r s . A n d a s e x e c u t i v e s s t a r t
displaying positive behaviours such as
self acceptance and regard for others,
their relationships with others at the
workplace begin to improve.
Note: This study was conducted on a sample
of managers belonging to a leading public
sector undertaking which is involved in the
manufacturing of professional electronics
The name of the company has been withheld
to protect its identity.
Undertaking
May 2010
Sources
A r g y r i s , C . ( 1 9 6 2 ) . I n t e r p e r s o n a l
C o m p e t e n c e a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Effectiveness, Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey.
Black, T. G., & Westwood, M. J. (2004).

E v a l u a t i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a
Multidisciplinary Leadership Team in a
Cancer-Center, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 25(7).
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1973).
C o r p o r a t e E x c e l l e n c e t h r o u g h G r i d
Organization Development, Houston,
Texas: Gulf Publishing Co., p. 4.
Cook, S. & Macaulay, S. (1993). Efficiency
T h r o u g h S e l f A p p r a i s a l , M a n a g i n g
Service Quality, November, pp. 47-52.
Crapo, R. F. (1986). It’s Time to Stop
Training and Start Facilitating, Public
Personnel Management, Vol. 15(4), pp.
443-449.
D a l t o n , M . & D a l t o n , C . ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
Engineering Teams Can Be OK, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 23(3), pp. 110.
H a l l , J . ( 1 9 7 3 ) . C o m m u n i c a t i o n
Revisited, California Management Review,
Vol. 15(3), pp. 56-67.
Hall, J. (1974). Interpersonal Style and
t h e C o m m u n i c a t i o n D i l e m m a –
Managerial Implications of the Johari
Awareness Model, Human Relations, Vol.
27(4), pp. 381.
Hall, J. & Williams, M. S. (1967). Personnel
R e l a t i o n s S u r v e y , C o n r o e , T e x . :

Teleometrics International.
H a n s o n , P . G . ( 1 9 7 3 ) . T h e J o h a r i
Window: A Model for Soliciting and
Giving Feedback. In J. E. Jones & J. W.
Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1973 Annual Handbook
for Group Facilitators, San Diego, CA:
Pfeiffer & Company.
H e r s e y , P . , & B l a n c h a r d , K . H . , &
J o h n s o n , D . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . M a n a g e m e n t o f
Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human
R e s o u r c e s . 7 t h E d i t i o n , N e w D e l h i :
Prentice Hall of India.
Luft, J. (1969). Of Human Interaction: The
Johari Model, California: Mayfield Pub.
Co.
L u f t , J . ( 1 9 7 0 ) . G r o u p P r o c e s s : A n
Introduction to Group Dynamics, 2nd ed.,
Palo Alto Calif: National Press Book.
Luft, J. (1982). The Johari Window: A
G r a p h i c M o d e l o f A w a r e n e s s i n
Interpersonal Relations, NTL Reading
Book for Human Relations Training, NTL
Institute.
Luft, J. & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari
Window: A Graphic Model for Interpersonal
Relations, Univ. Calif. Western Training
Lab.
Lukose, A. P. (1985). Group Dynamics
and Modified Johari-Window Construct

in Joint Entrepreneurial Ventures: A
Case Study, Udyog Pragati, Vol. IX, No.
2, pp. 3-10.
Pfeiffer, J. W. (1996). Theories & Models in
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 2, pp. 43-
46.
Undertaking
Concept Map (TEMPLATE)
Student Name:
Instructor:
DATE Care Provided and UNIT:
Patient Information
(1)
Patient Initials:
Age & Gender:
Height/Weight:
Code Status:
Living Will/ DPOA:
History of Present Illness (HPI), Pathophysiology of Admitting
Dx (Cite References) Medical, Surgical, Social History (1).
WHAT BROUGHT THE PT TO THE HOSPITAL? WHAT
EVENTS LEAD UP TO THIS? WHAT HAPPENED WHEN
THEY GOT TO THE HOSPITAL- UNTIL NOW WHEN YOU

ARE PROVIDING CARE? (USE SEPARATE ATTACHED
WORD DOC WHEN NEEDED)
Medical History: (SEE RUBRIC REQUIREMENTS)
PAST DIAGNOSED MEDICAL PROBLEMS
Surgical History: (SEE RUBRIC REQUIREMENTS)
PAST DIAGNOSED SURGICAL PROBLEMS
Social History:
SMOKING/ CIGARETTE/ TOBACCO/ E-CIGARETTE
/MARIJUANA USEALCOHOL/ ELICIT DRUG USE
Chief Complaint
Admitting Diagnosis & Admission Date

Erickson’s Developmental Stage Related to pt. & Cite
References (1) *List and Discuss specific stage (based on
objective assessment)
Cultural considerations, ethnicity, occupation, religion, family
support, insurance. (1) (14) Socioeconomic/Cultural/Spiritual
Orientation & Psychosocial Considerations/Concerns: include
the following Social Determinants of Health (SDOH)
❋Economic Stability ( MAY DELETE THESE ‘TIPS” TO
USE SPACE)
❋ Education
❋Social and Community Context
❋ Health and Health Care
❋ Neighborhood and Built Environment
Student Name:
Instructor:
Key Diagnostic Tests/ Procedures and Lab Results with Dates
and Normal Ranges (3)
Lab Tests
Normal Ranges
Admission Lab Values

Current Lab Values
Explain Abnormal Labs R/T Your Pt

INCLUDE: Appropriate Diagnostic Tests/ Procedures- DATEs
and RESULTS
(Can add See attached Word Doc)

ANTICIPATED TRANSFER/ DISCHARGE PLANNING:
DISCUSS: PRIORITY GOALS TO BE ACHIEVED to
TRANSFER or DISCHARGE
EQUIPMENT ( MAY DELETE THESE ‘TIPS” TO
USE SPACE)
MEDS
TREATMENT
REFERRALS NEEDED
Medical Management and Collaborative Plan
(from MD, PT, OT notes….etc.) *Consider past 24 – 48 hours
Patient Education (In Pt.) for Transfer/ Discharge Planning
ASSESS LEARNING STYLE:
LEARNING PREFERENCE: WRITTEN, VIDEO, etc.
LEARNING BARRIER(S): LANGUAGE, EDUCATION LEVEL
ASSISTIVE DEVICES: GLASSES, HEARING AIDES, etc.

Medications & Allergies (2)
Medication Name
Dose
Route
Freq.
Indications (PRN meds must include MD ordered Indication)
Mechanism of Action
Side Effects/
Adverse Reactions
Nursing Considerations
RN Considerations

Student Name:
Instructor:
Respiratory (7)
Cardiovascular (6)
Vital Signs (4)
Neurological (5)
ASSESSMENT/
REVIEW OF SYTEMS

Musculoskeletal
(8)
GI
Hydration/Nutrition (9)
GU (10)

Rest/ Exercise (11)
Integumentary (12)
Misc.
Psychosocial (14)
Endocrine (13)

Student Name:
Instructor:
DATE of Care Provided and UNIT:
Priority Nursing Diagnosis #1
Priority Nursing Diagnosis #2
PLAN OF CARE
Evaluation #1
Intervention #1
At Risk Dx.-
Outcome/Goal #1

Outcome/Goal #1
At Risk Interventions
At Risk Outcomes/
Goal
Evaluation #2
At Risk Evaluation Plan
Interventions # 2
(VM/GP/KL-V5)
Discussion 2: Student Exchange: Self-Concept and the Johari
Window
Trust yourself. Create the kind of self that you will be happy to
live with all your life. Make the most of yourself by fanning the

tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.
—Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel, teacher,
kibbutznik and politician
Your journey into the field of communication begins with
knowing yourself. As Golda Meir suggests, knowing and
trusting yourself can help you build a successful life. The Johari
window provides a simple, yet effective graphic tool to consider
parts of your self-concept that you already know, what others
know about you, and areas in which knowledge can be gained.
By identifying areas of self-knowledge to gain, you identify
ways to improve your interpersonal communication expertise.
What “sparks of possibility” will you discover?
In this Discussion, you begin building a trusting environment
with your peers as you share personal insights gathered from
constructing a Johari window. You also identify areas where
additional self-knowledge can be gained.
Review this week’s Learning Resources and complete the
Preparation Activity as outlined below:
· Center for Creative Leadership. (Producer). (2017). Building
an authentic Leadership Image [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from
Authentic Leadership: What It Is, Why It Matters | CCL
· Mind Tools. (2018). The Johari window: Using self-discovery
and communication to build trust. Retrieved from
http://www.mindtools.com/CommSkll/JohariWindow.htm
· Nair, S. K., & Naik, N. S. (2010). The Johari window profile
of executives of a public sector undertaking. Management and
Labour Studies, 32(2), 137–148.
“See attachment”
Preparation Activity:
· Complete a 25-word personal Johari window including the
following:
· Facade: Think about the past 10 or more years of your life,
including both personal and professional relationships. List five

words that describe you that others may not consider or think
of.
· Ask two people who know you well to provide 10 words that
describe you (for a total of 20 words). It is important to have a
robust list of characteristics or traits from which to conduct a
thorough self-analysis. It is alright, and often expected, for
some items on the lists to overlap. If either person is unable to
come up with 10 words, please ask that he or she provides as
many descriptors as possible.
· Arena: Analyze the list and select five words that
were unsurprising or expected.
· Blind spot: Analyze the list and select five words that others
know about you but you were surprised to learn.
Assignment:
3-4 paragraphsbased on your analysis of the learning resources
and your professional experience. Be sure to discuss the
following:
· Evaluate the results of your 25-word Johari window that
includes how these words relate to your self-concept. Be sure to
address each of the categories in your window.
· Compare the differences between your self-concept (façade)
and how others describe you.
· Analyze your blind spots you identified based on the
responses received from the persons who helped you with your
Johari window and discuss any surprising outcomes.
· Analyze how your self-concept can help you devise strategies
for effective professional image, specifically in how you may
represent yourself in various settings.
· No plagiarism
· APA citing

137MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, May 2010In

137MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, May 2010In

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 137MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, May 2010In

Similar to 137MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, May 2010In (8)

More from AnastaciaShadelb

More from AnastaciaShadelb (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

137MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, May 2010In