Assumptions and the Johari Window: I

Since they were now officially stuck, Suzanne suggested they take a ten-minute break, and everyone agreed. Lynn left the conference room immediately, and the others went to the back kitchen area to get coffee. That left Matt and Suzanne.

Suzanne had an idea. "I'm wondering," she began, "if maybe the problem isn't someplace else."

Matt, puzzled, tilted his head and said, "By that you mean…"

"I mean, maybe we disagree because we're making different assumptions about something we don't know we're making different assumptions about."

Matt smiled. "I'm sorry, but tortured grammar is my specialty." They both chuckled. "But OK, tell me what you mean."

Suzanne obliged. "I remember something called the Johari window." She went on to show him how they could use the Johari window to expose differing assumptions, and it went something like this.

The Johari window is a four-pane window in which each pane represents a category of our joint knowledge. The panes are Open, Blind, Hidden, and Unknown. Open: I'm aware of this knowledge, and so are you. Blind: You're aware of this knowledge, but I'm not. Hidden: I'm aware of this knowledge, but you're not. And Unknown: Both of us are clueless about this.

When we disagree, the sources of our disagreement can often be outside our mutual awareness. Using the Johari window to classify our assumptions, we can surface them using techniques that are best for each of the Johari window's four categories.

Open assumptions

Open assumptions are those I know I'm making, and you do too. If we agree about them, then these assumptions are unlikely to spark destructive conflict. But even if we disagree about an open assumption, it's relatively less likely to create trouble, because we can discuss it, and we might even resolve or suspend our differences.

When you inventory assumptions to explore the sources of disagreements, start with open assumptions — they're relatively safe, even when there's disagreement about them.

My blind assumptions

Blind assumptions are those that I make, but which I'm unaware of, while they're evident to you. Typical are the assumptions about who's responsible for what in a marital relationship, or assumptions based on professional, factional, demographic, or ethnic stereotypes.

Blind assumptions are hard to find, because the assumer doesn't know they're there [Brenner 2006]. To search for them, propose candidates of your own — assumptions you think someone like you might make without being aware of them. This approach is relatively safe, because identifying the assumptions someone else might be making can seem like blaming — when we uncover a blind assumption, the assumer is more likely to have difficulty than is the assumer's partner.

These two kinds of assumptions are the easiest to find and discuss. In the issue after next, we'll look at two more that are somewhat more problematic.  Next in this series  Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

The Johari Window was developed by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham (Joe and Harry) in the 1960s. There's no better work on the topic than their own: Luft, Joseph. Of Human Interaction: The Johari Model. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1969. It's out of print, so check the library.

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Some Costs of COTS

As a way of managing risk, we sometimes steer our organizations towards commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components, methodologies, designs, and processes. But to gain a competitive edge, we need creative differentiation.

Teamwork Myths: I vs. We

In high performance teams, cooperative behavior is a given. But in the experience of many, truly cooperative behavior is so rare that they believe that something fundamental is at work — that cooperative behavior requires surrendering the self, which most people are unwilling to do. It's another teamwork myth.

The Ups and Downs of American Handshakes: II

Where the handshake is a customary business greeting, it's possible to offend accidentally. Here's Part II of a set of guidelines for handshakes in the USA.

You Might Be Stressed If…

A little stress once in a while keeps us sharp, but chronic intense stress shortens lives. Stress can build gradually, out of our awareness. Here are some indicators of chronic intense stress.

Holding Back: II

Members of high-performing teams rarely hold back effort. But truly high performance is rare in teams. Here is Part II of our exploration of mechanisms that account for team members' holding back effort they could contribute.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness, Problem Solving and Creativity and Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 12: Pre-Decision Discussions: Emotions

Some meeting agendas include exploring issues related to upcoming decisions. Although we believe that these discussions are purely rational and lead to rational decisions, some contributions evoke emotional responses. Here are five examples. Available here and by RSS on May 12.

And on May 19: Pre-Decision Discussions: Reasoning

When we meet to resolve issues related to upcoming decisions, we sometimes rely on reasoning to help find solutions. Contributions to these discussions generally use mixtures of deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. How do they differ, and what are their strengths and risks? Available here and by RSS on May 19.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenKyrpMiqBnnUUPnWHner@ChacgEbnSaDGlMyKFJgtoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   
• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   

Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?

Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 24, 2020, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   
• A recording of a program presented June 24, 2020, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.