Honest feedback, without the awkward start
The Johari Window exercise is a useful starting point for building a feedback culture with your peers. Rather than jumping straight into difficult feedback conversations, it gives you and your colleagues a structured, lower-stakes way to begin exploring how you see yourselves and each other. It is a tool for you to reflect on which traits you think you exhibit amongst your colleagues, and which traits your colleagues see in you. The results are easy to understand, with each trait belonging to one of four categories, visualised as four panes of a window:
From here, you can seek feedback to reduce your blind spot, or choose to be more open with your peers to reduce your façade.
Open (or Arena)
Known to self & others
Blind Spot
Unknown to self, known to others
Hidden (or Façade)
Known to self, unknown to others
Unknown
Unknown to self & others
Start a new Johari Window exercise for your team and invite participants by email.
Create a sessionCheck your email for the manage link sent when you confirmed your session.
The Johari Window is a model and exercise developed in 1955 by two psychologists, Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham. The name is a blend of their first names - Jo from Joseph, and Hari from Harrington.
The model helps individuals understand how they perceive themselves and how others perceive them. It emerged during a period of significant development in psychology, alongside the humanistic movement being shaped by thinkers such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow.
Unlike some personality tools that offer a relatively static picture, Luft and Ingham were explicit that the window is not fixed. As relationships change, grow, and develop, the window changes with them. Repeating the exercise over time can therefore reveal the shifting dynamics between an individual and the people they work with.
The results point to two clear ways to expand the Open area. To move into the Blind Spot, the individual needs to seek feedback from peers about specific traits - providing a structured and accessible first step into asking for open, candid feedback.
To move into the Hidden area, the individual needs to reflect on whether those traits are something they feel comfortable disclosing more openly, or whether the gap between self-perception and how they come across is something they want to work on. It is worth noting that not everyone will want to reduce their façade as social, cultural, and personal boundaries are legitimate, and the model respects that.
For this tool the original list of adjectives used by Luft and Ingham has been lightly updated. The original 56 words included terms such as "religious" which feel out of place in a modern workplace context. The updated list aims to stay true to the spirit of the original while being more relevant to how we work today.
Whilst most visualisations of the Johari Window show each area as the same size, in reality the proportions will differ depending on a number of factors. In a close-knit team that has been working together for a long time, individuals' open areas are more likely to be the largest, as psychological safety tends to be higher. In groups with significant differences in seniority or power dynamics, the shape of each person's window may look very different. The Johari Window is a useful exercise for explicitly and visually exploring these interpersonal and team dynamics.
Luft also outlined eleven principles that describe how awareness changes through interaction with others. A plain English summary accompanies each principle below.
All areas are interdependent. If one trait moves, the others readjust. This reflects the complexity of human relationships.
People have more energy and are happier when they can be themselves. Trying to conceal who you are is draining.
Psychological safety within a group will more likely lead to larger open areas.
Making people be overly transparent before they are ready is not what we are aiming for and can actually be harmful.
Understanding your peers and teammates better will, by default, grow the open area for everyone.
When people can engage openly, more of their actual skills and knowledge are available to the group - rather than being spent on managing impressions or navigating politics.
If teammates don't have a common understanding of each other, the quality of how they work and collaborate will suffer.
Not everyone wants to be fully open, and that is not a bad thing. It is a natural result of our different social and cultural backgrounds.
Not everyone wants to be an open book and that should be respected. The goal is not total transparency but willing, comfortable openness.
Understanding how we work together as a team benefits everyone. It is not a fixed state but an ongoing, evolving process.
How a group chooses to confront (or avoid) the things it does not yet know about itself reflects its values and ways of working more broadly.