Have you ever been in one of those multi-angled conversations with several people at once, and you could sense the undercurrents that contradicted any surface messages being relayed? You may have felt some of these people were oblivious to anything you were talking about or how what they were saying was affecting the rest of the group. Well, you may have been right in thinking so.
In 1955, psychologists Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham presented the “Johari Window” (a play on the meshing of their first names) to try and explain how others might see us and how we see ourselves. By extension, if these two ideas are at odds, communication is muddled at best.
Imagine a four-paned window as we proceed. The top left pane (or ARENA) holds those things we know about ourselves, and others also know these same things about us, i.e., everything is out in the open. Conversely, the top right pane contains those things others know about us, but which we can’t see, thus the “BLIND SPOT.”
The bottom left is filled with things we wish to keep secret from others (a FACADE), and the bottom right pane has those things (UNKNOWNS) so deep even we don’t know about them.
Now, Joe and Harry intended this exercise to help individuals become more self-aware by having others share what they see in the BLIND SPOT and, also by opening up about those things in the FAÇADE area until the ARENA pane is enlarged enough to even eliminate the UNKNOWNs.
In practice, if I’m communicating from the ARENA to others who share that windowpane, there will be no undercurrents, no questions about me meaning what I say. However, if I tend to operate from my BLIND SPOT, I might offend or antagonize people without ever knowing the negative effects of my broadcast.
Psychologist Eric Berne further analyzed transactions in his 1964 bestseller Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships. In this book he noted we have three EGO states: Adult, Parent, and Child. He also identified three forms of transactions: Complementary, Crossed, and Ulterior.
A complementary transaction is one that comes from one of the ego states directly to an ego state of another person. For instance, from my Adult state I tell you that you did a good job, and you also respond from the Adult state with a “thank you,” our transactions were sent and received with no hidden meanings or bungled messages. Likewise, if I say something like, “Be careful when you drive home” and you respond with “I will,” I am coming at you as the caring Parent and you are responding as the cared about Child. Both are complementary transactions, positive, and effective in meaning.
Now, how things get messed up is when I send out a message from the Adult ego state to your Adult state but you respond from a Parent or Child state. Using the “Good Job” example I used earlier, you respond with something like ”No thanks to you; I barely had enough resources to get it done.” Our transactions became “crossed.” Last, an ulterior transaction is when I say one thing, but I mean something completely different. I say “Good Job,” but my tone is sarcastic enough that you really know it’s a jab at your efforts and not a sincere pat on the back.
Obviously, I have just touched the surface of both of these management theories. In summary, we will be better communicators if we operate from the ARENA windowpane more often than not, and work to enlarge it as much as possible. Furthermore, we need to transact more from the Adult ego stage and work to reduce our crossed and ulterior transactions, or at least become aware that we are playing games if we don’t.
Best regards to all (Adult), and let’s be safe out there (Parent)
