reason to stay in the box

"To begin with," Lou continued, "it helps to understand how we don't get out of the box."

He turned to the board and wrote: "What doesn't work in the box."

"To begin with," he said, turning back to me, "think about the things we try to do when we're in the box. For example, in the box, who do we think has the problem?"

"Others," I answered.

"That's right," he said, "so normally we spend a lot of energy in the box trying to change others. But does that work? Does that get us out of the box?"

"No."

"Why not?" he asked.

"Well, because that's the problem in the first place," I said. "I'm trying to change them because, in the box, I think they need to be changed. And that's the problem."

"But does that mean no one needs to be changed?" Lou asked. "Is everyone doing things just perfectly then? Is that what you're saying - that no one needs to improve?"

I felt a little stupid when he asked the question. Come on, Callum, I said to myself. Think! I wasn't being careful enough. "No, or course not. Everyone needs to improve."

"Well, then," he said, "Why not the other guy? What's wrong if I want him to improve?"

That was a good question. What is wrong with that? I asked myself. I thought that's what all this meant, but at that moment I wasn't so sure. "I'm not sure," I said.

"Well, think about it this way. While it's true that others may have problems they need to solve, are their problems the reason I'm in the box?"

"No," I said. "That's what you think in the box, but it's a misperception."

"Exactly," said Lou. "So even if I were successful and the person I tried to change actually changed, would that solve the problem of my being in the box?"

"No, I guess it wouldn't."

"That's right, it wouldn't - even if the other person actually did change."

"And it's even worse than that," Bud interjected. "Think about what we talked about yesterday regarding collusion: When I'm in the box and try to get others to change, do I invite them to change as I'd like?"

"No," I said. "You'll end up provoking just the opposite." 

"Exactly," Bud said. "My box ends up provoking more of the very thing I set out to change. So if I try to get out by changing others, I'll end up provoking others to give me reason to stay in the box."

Leadership and Self-deception: Getting Out of the Box by Arbinger Institute. Berrett-Koehler. 2002. p.129-130

you're already out of the box

When you're feeling that you want to be out of the box for someone, in that moment you're already out. You're feeling that way because you're now seeing him or her as a person. In feeling that way toward that person, you're already out of the box.

Leadership and Self-deception: Getting Out of the Box by Arbinger Institute. Berrett-Koehler. 2002. p.127

their shortcomings justify my failure

"You can't focus on results because in the box you're focused on yourself."

...Even most of the people you've encountered in your career who you think are results-focused really aren't. They value results primarily for the purpose of creating or sustaining their own stellar reputations. And you can tell because they generally don't feel that other people's results are as important as their own. Think about it - most people aren't nearly so happy when other people in the organization succeed as they are when they themselves do. So they run all over people trying to get only their own results - with devastating effects. They might beat their chests and preach focusing on results, but it's a lie. In the box, they, like everyone else, are just focused on themselves. But in the box, they, like everyone else, can't see it.

And it's even worse than that. Because, remember, in the box we provoke others to get in the box. We withhold information, for example, which gives others reason to do the same. We try to control others, which provokes the very resistance that we feel the need to control all the more. We withhold resources from others, who then feel the need to protect resources from us. We blame others for dragging their feet and in so doing give them reason to feel justified in dragging their feet all the more. And so on.

And through it all we think that all our problems would be solved if Jack wouldn't do this or if Linda wouldn't do that or if XYZ department would just straighten up of if the company would get a clue. But it's a lie. It's a lie even if Jack, Linda, XYZ department, and the company need to improve, which they surely do. Because when I'm blaming them, I'm not doing it because they need to improve, I'm blaming them because their shortcomings justify my failure to improve. 

So, one person in an organization, by being in the box and failing to focus on results, provokes his or her coworkers to fail to focus on results as well. Collusion spreads far and wide, and the end result is that coworkers position themselves against coworkers, workgroups against workgroups, departments against departments. People who came together to help an organization succeed actually end up delighting in each other's failures and resenting each other's successes.

Leadership and Self-deception: Getting Out of the Box by Arbinger Institute. Berrett-Koehler. 2002. p.105-107

how you're being

Remember, people respond not primarily to what you do but to how you're being - whether you're in or out of the box toward them. 

Leadership and Self-deception: Getting Out of the Box by Arbinger Institute. Berrett-Koehler. 2002. p.43

knowing a person's name

I have found, at least with me, that if I'm not interested in knowing a person's name, I'm probably not really interested in the person as a person. For me, it's a basic litmus test. Now it doesn't necessarily work the other way - that is, I can learn and know people's names and have them still be just objects to me. But if I'm unwilling even to try to remember someone's name, that itself is a clue to me that he or she is probably just an object to me and that I'm in the box.

Leadership and Self-deception: Getting Out of the Box by Arbinger Institute. Berrett-Koehler. 2002. p.41