Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [542]
As an example, one inmate shared that he was “forced” to commit robbery because his best friend needed money for his mother’s hospitalization bill. At the time, he felt he had no other choice. The irony was that it was not at his friend’s request but his own need to feel “the man” and act as “big brother.” Without even considering other alternatives such as government assistance for low-income families or consulting the hospital social worker, he automatically assumed the burden to meet his own misguided need to prove his loyalty.
In another incident, an inmate was arrested for vehicle theft and rioting after receiving an urgent call from a fellow gang member who was outnumbered and involved in a serious “showdown” with his enemies. With no money, he felt he had no choice but to steal a vehicle and go to save his friend. Based on this logic, he failed to see the justice behind his arrest and the reason for imprisonment was lost on him. In another rioting case, the inmate recounted that he had no choice but to fight because an enemy gang member had “stared at him.” In order to protect his honor, he had to stare back and fight.
From these incidents, one can see the extreme measures taken to save face. To them, choice is not an option where face is concerned. Unless they are able to look forward and question their priorities of what is really important in their lives, everyday actions will remain impeded by their unvalidated need to preserve face at all cost, even at the expense of work and family.
What to Change to?
Self-Regulation
Based on the previous observations, though by no means exhaustive, a pattern is starting to emerge. If we draw a conclusion strictly according to these findings, then presumably the main reason why ex-inmates do not successfully reintegrate into society is due to lack of control over external influences, that is, discriminatory employers, lack of family support, negative peer pressure, prison life being too comfortable, and being forced by circumstances to commit the crime to protect their “face” and honor. If this hypothesis is correct, then it implies that the inmate is just a passive victim of circumstance.
The folly of this victim mentality is obvious. Undoubtedly, the role of the inmate supersedes any form of external influence. How we choose to think and what we choose to do is governed by self-will after deliberation on all external factors. The only way to improve our life is to take responsibility for our actions through self-regulation. As the old adage goes, if we can’t change others, then we can only change ourselves. Using the TOC TP tools, the goal was to take them to the mirror and let them see their own reflection before deciding for themselves what makeover, if any, was required. Change must be prompted from within rather than dictated by others to be effective.
Why TOC?
Many people have asked what it was about TOC that led me to believe it could change deeply ingrained thinking patterns developed over a lifetime. How could we convince grown men of such tough demeanor to openly share personal problems, admit their personal shortcomings, and put them up for group scrutiny within an impossibly short contact time of 18 hours? What generic tool could meet the individual needs of 60 inmates with a plethora of different backgrounds and chronic conflicts?
To an observer, it seemed almost foolhardy for us to continue given our limited experience and intuition in the challenging prison environment. What was so special about TOC that gave us the confidence