The New Johari Window
We wish to take this analysis of Johari-related honesty one step further. One of us [WB] has created “The New Johari Window” (Bergquist, 2023). This new window has been constructed because the original model does have so limitations as engaged in our challenging mid-21st century world. The New Johari Window is more dynamic and contextual than original window, for it offers even more finely differentiated panes in Quadrant 2 and 3. Each of these panes can, in turn, portray subtly nuanced interplay amongst actors in an interpersonal drama. The key element in this subtle interplay, however, remains the same and consistent—this key element is trust—which forms the basis for honesty. We begin, therefore, with a visit to the domain of trust and suggest that even this seemingly straight-forward dimension of interpersonal relationships is, in fact, rather complex.
Three Forms of Trust
Some linguists (notably Benjamin Whorf, 1973) believe that you can tell quite a bit about a culture by noting areas in which there is very elaborate and detailed labeling and areas in which labeling is sparse. The many names for snow among the Innuit (Eskimos) and the many words for love among the Greeks are often offered as evidence of this so-called Whorfian hypothesis. Innuit seem to be very interested in snow, hence have many different names to describe different kinds of snow (much as avid snow skiers have multiple labels, such as “corn snow” and “powder snow”). The Greeks similarly seem to be very interested in love and its many different forms (ranging from “eros” to “agape”).
We would like to contribute yet another example. This concerns the word “trust.” For some reason, there is only one word in English for the many different forms that “trust” takes in our society. Does this suggest that “trust” isn’t really valued in our society? At the very least, it means that the concept of “trust” can be very confusing to us. We believe that trust is a critical component in any dynamic model of human interaction; hence, we take the distinctions between different forms of trust quite seriously. Trust is the engine of interpersonal relationships and provides the foundation for honesty. It provides both direction and energy for sustained human interaction. It provides direction by setting goals for virtually any relationship. It provides energy by providing each member of the relationship with motivation to continue engaging in the relationship. It serves as the foundation for honesty, because it increases our capacity to predict how other people will relate to our honest disclosures and honest feedback.
Most of us hope that our interactions with other people will increase levels of trust—even when we are trying to manipulate another person or are at war with this other person. If nothing else, we want them to be clear about our intentions—even if this means that we intend to do them harm. We rarely want other people to leave us with less clarity regarding our relationship or with less interest in engaging us in future relationships. When trust is considered in relationship to the Johari Window, its direction and energy become even more important and apparent. The dynamics of both disclosure and feedback are profoundly influenced by levels of individual and reciprocal trust which lead to reciprocal honesty. It is important, therefore, that we be clear about what the term “trust” means to us. In doing so, we will propose that this term actually has three different (though related) meanings, and that “trust” has a distinctive impact on interpersonal relationships depending on which of these meanings is being engaged.
Specifically, we propose that the first meaning associated with the English word, “trust,” concerns competence. The second meaning concerns intentions. The third meaning concerns perspective. We illustrate each of these three meanings by turning to an exercise—called the “trust fall”—that was very popular in the human growth workshops of the 1960s and was revived during the 1990s as a component of “Ropes” (Survival) courses. One participant is asked to stand in front of the group or (in a “Ropes” program) to step up on a platform, walk to the edge, and turn her back (as if preparing for a back dive into a pool of water). In the old 60s program, someone was asked to stand behind the trust-faller. In the case of the Ropes program, several people are asked to stand in front of the platform. The trust-faller then, as the name implies, falls back into the arms of the person or persons assigned to catch her. This exercise obviously involves the willingness of a person to trust that they will be caught by another person or group of people.
