15 Box Focus

“It has everything to do with work,” I said, surprised by the strength of my opinion.

“How?” Bud asked.

“How?” I replied.

“Yes, how?” Bud said with a slight smile.

“Well, to begin with,” I said, “nearly everyone at work is in the box, as near as I can tell. At least nearly everyone at Tetrix was.”

“So what?”

“So what?” I repeated in surprise.

“Yeah, so what?” he said.

“Well, if we’re in the box, we’ll be inviting others to be in the box, too, and we’ll end up with all kinds of conflict that gets in the way of what we’re trying to do.”

“Which is what?” Bud asked.

I hesitated, unsure of what Bud meant.

“You just said that all of that conflict would get in the way of what we’re trying to do,” Bud continued. “So my question is, what is it we’re trying to do?”

“Trying to be productive, I suppose.”

“Ah,” Bud said, as though he had finally found what he was looking for. “So the box gets in the way of our achieving results.”

“Yes,” I agreed.

“Let’s think about how it does that,” he said. “There are actually two main reasons why the box undercuts results. The first is what Kate has just taught us. When we’re in the box, what motivates us most is the need for justification, and what will bring us justification is very often at odds with what is best for the organization. Does that make sense?”

I nodded, thinking as I did so that this was true whether the organization was a company or a family.

“Here at Zagrum, we use the term ‘what-focus’ to describe whatever a person is focused on achieving. Out of the box, my what-focus at work is results. In the box, by contrast, my what-focus is justification. That’s the first reason why the box always undercuts results.”

That made sense. “What’s the second reason?” I asked.

“It has to do with my ‘who-focus’ when I’m in the box,” Bud answered.

“You’re focused on yourself when you’re in the box, aren’t you?” I blurted out.

“Exactly, Tom, and as long as I am focused on myself, I can’t fully focus either on results or on the people to whom I am to be delivering those results. In fact, if you think about it, many of the people typically described as being results-focused are anything but that. In the box, they value results primarily for the purpose of creating or sustaining their own stellar reputations — their who-focus is themselves. 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 as 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,” Kate added. “Because, remember, in the box we provoke others to get in the box — both with us and against us. We and our allies 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 or 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,” she continued, “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 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.”

“That’s really crazy,” I said in amazement. “But I see just what you’re talking about all the time. Tetrix was full of those kinds of situations.”

“Yes. Think about it,” Bud said. “When were you most happy — when Chuck Staehli succeeded, or when he failed?”

The question caught me off guard. I had meant that I’d seen this in others all the time. Staehli really was a problem. I wasn’t just making that up. And he created all kinds of trouble — conflict, poor teamwork, and so on. “I, uh, I … I don’t know,” I offered weakly.

“Well, you might think about it a little. When dealing with germs, the mere fact that someone else is sick doesn’t mean that I’m not sick. In fact, when I’m surrounded by sick people, chances are greater that I will get sick myself.”

He paused and looked at me for a moment. “Remember Semmelweis?”

“The doctor who discovered the cause of the high mortality rate in the maternity ward?”

“Yes. In his case, it was the doctors themselves — the people who focused on the sicknesses and problems of others — that spread the disease. As a result, childbed fever, with its various symptoms, spread unchecked, claiming victim after victim. All because of a single germ no one knew about — most especially those who carried it.

“What happens in organizations is analogous.” Bud stood up and moved to the board. “Let me show you what I mean.”