The New Johari Window #18. Quadrant One: Continental School of Thought Regarding Interpersonal Needs and Quad One General Implications

The New Johari Window #18. Quadrant One: Continental School of Thought Regarding Interpersonal Needs and Quad One General Implications

Experts in human relations similarly argue that we should learn how to better control our emotions, yet do not speak about the impact of this control on our tenuous sense of self in this turbulent and complex postmodern world. To what extent, for instance, do managers in contemporary organizations learn how to control their own emotions as they move through complex and often contradictory workdays?

At the end of the day, how do they recognize their “real” feelings, having effectively controlled and modified their feelings all day long to cope with the turbulent postmodern world that exists inside and around their organization? Similarly, to what extent will a postmodern therapist, physician, minister, nurse or social worker manage her heart when working with a variety of needy clients or patients? To what extent is a human service professional likely to be confused about her emotions at the end of a long, hard day of work? These are important questions to ponder as we prepare our children—and ourselves—for the postmodern world.

The Hochschild study strongly suggests that our emotions are defined in large part not by our internal physiological cues, but by our interpersonal context and the social cues that emanate from this context. Our public self (Quad One) is, in turn, strongly influenced by our emotions, as is our opaque self (Quad Three), from which leaks nonverbal behavior that is, itself, strongly influenced by our emotions.

We are in control of our public self (Quad One-Internal) to the extent that we can actually control our emotions —turning them on and off, as in the “deep acting” that Hochschild suggest occurs among flight attendants and bill-collectors. The Continental school proposes that this internal control is rarely the case. Even when we are “in charge” of our emotions, the nature and “use” of these emotions are dictated by assigned roles (for example, that of a sympathetic therapist) or purposes (for example, the anger/violence of the football player or the sociability of the flight attendant).


Share this:

About the Author

William BergquistWilliam Bergquist, Ph.D. An international coach and consultant in the fields of psychology, management and public administration, author of more than 50 books, and president of a psychology institute. Dr. Bergquist consults on and writes about personal, group, organizational and societal transitions and transformations. His published work ranges from the personal transitions of men and women in their 50s and the struggles of men and women in recovering from strokes to the experiences of freedom among the men and women of Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union. In recent years, Bergquist has focused on the processes of organizational coaching. He is coauthor with Agnes Mura of coachbook, co-founder of the International Journal of Coaching in Organizations and co-founder of the International Consortium for Coaching in Organizations.

View all posts by William Bergquist

Leave a Reply