Discussion2W1
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
138MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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
139MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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 information 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
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector Undertaking
140MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector Undertaking
141MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector Undertaking
142MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector Undertaking
143MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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.
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector Undertaking
144MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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.
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector Undertaking
145MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector Undertaking
146MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector Undertaking
147MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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.
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector Undertaking
148MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR STUDIES Vol. 35 No. 2, 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.
The Johari Window Profile of Executives of a Public Sector Undertaking