Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [551]
Examples of role play include: a man agreeing to marry his girlfriend after she threatens to leave (give-in), a prison officer insisting certain actions to be followed by an inmate (comply), a mother nagging her son until he decides to move out (avoid), a husband and wife agreeing to take turns watching TV for 15 minutes each during the final match of the Soccer World Cup and a TV drama finale (compromise). By the end of this exercise, participants are much more receptive to learning about win-win upon seeing the consequence of win-lose.
Teaching Sufficiency Logic Sufficiency logic is the basis of the Logic Branch used to understand consequences of actions and improve half-baked ideas. It is read in an “if . . . then . . . because” or “if . . . and if . . . then . . . because” format to describe why situations exist or why we believe particular actions will result in certain outcomes. The validity of their cause-effect relationships depends on sufficiency.
The concept of cause and effect is well understood by most people. With very few exceptions, every inmate knew the immediate negative consequence of their actions prior to committing the crime and yet still went ahead. What prompted them to act in such an illogical manner? There are two main reasons behind this:
1. Failure to understand the full consequence of actions
2. Failure to validate the predicted effect
Understanding the Full Consequence of Actions In behavior, necessity logic is critical to understanding what causes us to act, whereas sufficiency logic helps to validate what we believe will happen because of the act. The problem behind the latter is that it is often determined by our individual experience and intuition rather than from the possession of full facts. If we have insufficient intuition about the situation, then we rely on our limited experience to form an opinion. Based on these opinions, we form behavior patterns that govern how we behave and think.
For example, IF I offend, AND I get arrested, THEN I go to prison.
IF I offend AND I do not get arrested, THEN I make easy money.
Without sufficient intuition, the decision whether to offend is made based on individual assumptions about (1) prison, and (2) the probability of arrest. For first-time offenders, both sets of assumptions are based on the experience of their peers, which is often exaggerated to show off their bravado. For multiple offenders, it depends on their personal experience. In both cases, the intuition is usually inadequate to make a well-informed judgment within this limited circle of knowledge and the branch is ended prematurely. Guided facilitation is required to extend the logic branch into a deeper understanding of consequences; for example, easy money may result in negative influence of peers, loss of work ethic, and greater tolerance and propensity for crime.
The other problem associated with insufficient intuition is the inability to see the full consequence of actions beyond themselves that occur because of their offense, especially if there is not a clear victim as there is in a rape or murder case. While the negative consequence to self and their immediate family is clear, many feel exonerated for their offense after being charged and incarcerated, i.e., their punishment has already paid for the crime. What they do not realize is the domino effect of their crime to society and everyone within their sphere of influence.
Figure 27-10 illustrates a drug trafficking example where one can see the initial logic branch resulting in either “I suffer in prison” on the left or “I get rich and impress peers” on the right. After much debate, the class was shocked to see the far-reaching effects on their peers,