Disclosure / Feedback
As in the case of Quad One, some rich insights regarding Quad Two can be derived from consideration of the differing perspectives on this quadrant that are offered by the American, British and Continental schools.
Our analysis of Quad Two is concerned with what other people observe in our behavior that leads them to assume (rightly or wrongly) that we have certain needs.
Why don’t we find out more about ourselves from other people? We don’t find out in part because we don’t want to know (Q2-I) (internal locus of control).
Joe Luft is particularly insightful about three Quad Two issues: (1) consensual reliability, (2) interacting alone and (3) forced exposure.
At this point, I will offer two other versions regarding Kevin and Sheila’s second quadrants, using the alternative structures of the original Johari Window that I introduced in an earlier essay (Quad One).
Joe Luft’s analysis and his Original Window are unique in that this “blind” self is juxtaposed with and dynamically interrelated to the three other selves: public, private and unknown.
The New Johari Window #18. Quadrant One: Continental School of Thought Regarding Interpersonal Needs and Quad One General Implications
The Continental perspective on Quad One concerns deception, fear and the exercise of power.
The New Johari Window #17. Quadrant One: Interpersonal Needs and the American and British Schools of Thought
Examining the fundamental needs that underlie and drive relationships by exploring two of the three different perspectives (schools of thought) regarding interpersonal relationships: American and British
Having described the original Window and offered examples of how this window dynamically operates in the relationship established between two people, I will move further toward the new window.
To make sense of Joe Luft’s original concept of Quad One—in all of its subtlety and complexity—I will offer a hypothetical example of two people in interaction.