A baby is learning to crawl. She starts by pushing herself back around the house. Backing away, she lodges under the furniture. She there she writhes, crying and hitting her little head against the sides and the bottom of her pieces. She’s stuck and she hates it. So she does the only thing she can think of to get by: she tries even harder, which only makes her problem worse. She is more stuck than ever.
If this baby could talk, he would blame the furniture for his problems. She, after all, is doing everything she can think of. The problem couldn’t be hers. But of course the problem is hers, even if she can’t see it. While it is true that she is doing everything that occurs to her, the problem is precisely that she does not see how she is the problem. Having the problem that she has, nothing that occurs to her will be a solution.
Self-deception is like that.
Leadership and self-deception is written as a parable. Although it includes a number of illustrative figures, the theme of the book is presented in the context of the protagonist’s experience, which has never been my favorite kind of book. I much prefer books that state the premise and then use examples to illustrate. Because I dislike the parable approach so much, I wouldn’t have finished Leadership and self-deception if I hadn’t heard so many rave reviews. But here I am reviewing it and recommending it. There is a helpful message embedded in this book: to use Einstein’s words, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”
the premises
Tom Callum, the protagonist, had been on the job as a senior manager at the Zagrum Company for two months when he was called in to meet with Executive Vice President (and Harvard Law grad) Bud Jefferson. That meeting, which lasted for several days, forms the basis of Leadership and Self-Deception and presents the key strategies for Zagrum’s success.
Bud explains that self-deception is the root of most interpersonal problems. When we fail to do something for another that we know we should do, we betray ourselves and begin to resist the other person; to justify that resistance, we begin to blame. When we blame, we start to see others in a way that justifies that blame, and then we are “in the box.” When we are “in the box,” we stop seeing reality (deluding ourselves) and instead create negative interactions with others, shifting focus from achieving mutually beneficial results to blaming each other for not achieving results. In summary, to use the book’s summary of his lessons (from page 102):
- An act contrary to what I feel I should do for another is called an act of “self-betrayal.”
- When I betray myself, I start to see the world in a way that justifies my self-betrayal.
- When I see a world that justifies itself, my vision of reality is distorted.
- So when I betray myself, I go into the box.
- Over time, certain boxes become characteristic of me and I carry them with me.
- By being IN the box, I cause others to be in the box.
- In the box, we invite mutual abuse and get mutual justification. We collide by giving ourselves a reason to stay in the box.
The only way “outside the box” is to stop resisting the other person and do the things we think we should do for that person.
A brief example may help clarify. Years ago, I read about a woman who was riding the subway and was incredibly annoyed by two young children who ran around screaming while her father sat quietly near her and did nothing to discipline them. The woman thought (as, I suspect, many of us would) how rude the man was, what a lousy father he must be to allow his children to be so disruptive, how inconsiderate and irresponsible he was. After reaching her boiling point, she said something to the man about her children screaming and the man snapped out of his reverie and said quietly, “I’m sorry, we’re just coming home from the hospital where my wife just died.” . At that moment, of course, everything changed and the woman’s anger evaporated because she saw the man differently. She jumped out of the box.
Lawyers can relate
Going back to the parable: Leadership and self-deception includes a legal example, in which Bud Jefferson (the master of the story) recounts his experience as a young associate working on his first research project, culminating in writing a memo to provide urgent guidance to a client. The senior associate (described in the story as soon to be reviewed for the partnership) passed the memo to the partner and asked Bud two weeks later if he had reviewed the pocket parts when he did the investigation. He hadn’t, and the law had completely changed, making the memo absolutely wrong.
The lead associate called the partner and told him he made a mistake, never mentioning Bud not checking the pocket pieces. If the senior associate had blamed Bud, she wouldn’t have taken responsibility for her own mistake (not asking a new lawyer if he’d checked the parts in the pocket, as she knew she should), thereby betraying herself, putting herself at risk. herself “in the box” and will probably spend time explaining why the mistake was Bud’s fault and he didn’t focus on getting the right information to the customer right away.
Instead, he was “out of the box” and didn’t blame Bud (although he surely could have); Bud felt more deeply his responsibility for the mistake because the senior associate didn’t blame or defensive him; and she created a relationship in which he would do everything possible not to let her down. Both Bud and the lead associate were focused on the outcome for the client, not themselves.
Applications for lawyers
Imagine using these concepts (but not the “in the box”/”out of the box” language) to help a client see that a problem previously thought to be insurmountable is actually amenable to a solution without going to litigation. Or perhaps helping the client understand why a negotiation failed and suggesting a part-to-part approach that could get them back on track.
Imagine a contentious partners meeting. Is it possible that some of the challenges stem from self-delusion? Again, I wouldn’t necessarily suggest using the language (and certainly not accusing a partner of being “in the box”), but the concepts might help open a path for productive discussion.
The concepts expounded in Leadership and Self-Deception are simple, though not necessarily easy to apply. Since most of what lawyers do revolves around communicating and working with others, opportunities to use learning abound.
The bottom line
The bottom line for me is to watch the moments when I catch myself blaming someone. When I blame myself, it’s a red flag that the focus is on me and not results. If I can pause and look at the underlying situation (what is my responsibility, what do I know I need to do), I can often stop blaming and move on to the task at hand more effectively. It works on both a professional and personal level, and the changes can be quite drastic. I highly recommend it Leadership and self-deception.