Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 29b28de260a95304ea5f1809245f704becf7005d72256e9407b870b3df17bb96

# Enhancing Leadership and Relationships Workshop

Participants analyze a case of interpersonal self-deception, reflect privately on their own workplace friction, and rehearse concrete conversational shifts in pairs.

**Time:** 180 minutes. Matches the 3-hour source framework: 45 min case study, 60 min reflection, 60 min action planning, 15 min close.
**People:** 4 to 20. Small groups of 3 to 5 for case study; pairs or trios for reflection and practice; whole-room debriefs.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Identify habits of blaming others while excusing personal contribution, and practice shifting posture to view colleagues as people with valid needs.
**Use it when:** Use when a team or leadership cohort experiences chronic friction, transactional communication, or mutual blaming across roles.
**Skip it when:** Skip during active formal grievances, disciplinary reviews, or where extreme power imbalances make voluntary reflection unsafe.

## Materials and tools

- One printed copy of the Case Study Scenario per participant
- One printed copy of the Reflection and Action Plan worksheet per participant
- One flip chart and marker per small group of 3 to 5 (or digital whiteboard per breakout)
- Pens for all participants
- Whiteboard or display screen for framing definitions

## Before participants arrive

1. Arrange tables and chairs to support small groups of 3 to 5.
2. Place pens and Case Study sheets face down at each seat.
3. Write definitions on the display: 'In the Box' (seeing others as objects, obstacles, or vehicles) and 'Out of the Box' (seeing others as people with legitimate needs and concerns).

## Say this to open

Welcome. Today we examine how we see colleagues during conflict. We will examine self-deception, specifically what The Arbinger Institute calls being in the box. When we are in the box, we treat others as obstacles or problems while justifying our own reactions. We will review a case study, reflect privately on our own workplace habits, and practice a constructive conversation shift.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce concepts and analyze case (45 minutes)

Present the concepts of being in the box versus out of the box using the prepared display definitions. Form groups of 3 to 5. Hand out the Case Study Scenario. Each group reads the text and records on their flip chart or digital whiteboard: where the manager acts self-deceived, how the manager justifies their behavior, and the effect on the team. After 25 minutes of small-group discussion, ask one spokesperson from each of two groups to share one finding for the room.

### 2. Reflect individually and share in pairs (60 minutes)

Hand out the Reflection and Action Plan worksheet. Have participants spend 20 minutes writing silently on Part 1, reflecting on a workplace frustration where they treated someone as an obstacle. Pair participants. For 35 minutes (17 minutes each), partners discuss how they viewed the person and how an out-of-the-box perspective changes that view. Participants may keep names private or use a past resolved scenario. Spend the final 5 minutes taking brief whole-room observations on common patterns.

### 3. Build action plan and rehearse shift (60 minutes)

Direct participants to complete Part 2 of their worksheet individually for 15 minutes, drafting exact words to re-engage their colleague. Reform pairs for 35 minutes to role-play the interaction. Person A delivers their new opening. Person B plays the colleague, responding realistically. After 3 minutes, Person B provides feedback on whether Person A spoke to them as a person or tried to manipulate them. Switch roles at 15 minutes. Spend the final 10 minutes gathering two participant insights on authentic phrasing.

### 4. Synthesize and close (15 minutes)

Bring the full group together. Ask participants to record one concrete commitment on their worksheet to test within 48 hours. Clarify that participants keep their completed worksheets private for personal application. Answer two final procedural questions from the floor and conclude on time.


## Debrief questions

- What subtle signal tells you that you have started treating a colleague as an obstacle instead of a person?
- In the rehearsal, what specific phrase or tone made the conversation sound genuine rather than tactical?

**Finished output:** Each participant completes and retains a personal Action Plan worksheet detailing specific language and shifts for one work relationship.

## Remote

Run via video platform with breakout rooms. Distribute the scenario and worksheet as shared digital documents. Run Step 1 in breakouts of 3 to 5 using a shared digital whiteboard. Run Step 2 and Step 3 in pairs using 2-person breakout rooms with broadcast announcements at half-time for time swaps. If a second role-play round occurs, broadcast an additional time swap notice.

## Hybrid

Pair in-person participants with in-person colleagues, and remote participants with remote partners in breakout rooms to eliminate audio interference. Provide identical digital worksheets to all participants. Ensure remote breakout boards are mirrored on the physical room screen during whole-group sharing.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may choose a past, resolved professional conflict rather than an active dispute.
- During pair discussions, participants may discuss self-deception concepts generally without disclosing personal or confidential details.
- Rehearsal can be conducted as a verbal read-through of drafted sentences rather than an acted scenario.

## If the session gets stuck

**Participants use the reflection period to complain about difficult colleagues rather than examining their own posture.**

Intervene directly and redirect focus to the prompt: ask, 'Regardless of their choices, how did you justify pulling away or responding sharply?'

**Participant count creates an odd number during pair exercises.**

Form one group of three. Two people run the role-play while the third serves as a structured observer timing the interaction and providing feedback, rotating roles every 10 minutes.


## Terms used here

- In the Box: A state of self-deception where you view others primarily as objects, obstacles, or threats while excusing your own counterproductive behavior.
- Out of the Box: A posture of seeing others as people whose needs, challenges, and objectives matter as much as your own.

## Participant material: Case Study Scenario

Scenario: Marcus is a team lead delivering a critical quarterly report. His direct report, Priya, missed a submission deadline by 24 hours. Marcus did not ask Priya why the work was late; instead, he stayed late to redo her section himself, muttered to another colleague that 'if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself,' and excluded Priya from the final client presentation. In his view, he is a dedicated, hardworking leader carrying an unreliable team. Analyze: Where is Marcus self-deceived? What needs might Priya have that Marcus ignored? How did Marcus's reaction perpetuate poor performance?

## Participant material: Reflection and Action Plan Worksheet

Part 1: Identifying the Box
1. Describe a recent situation where you felt frustrated or let down by a colleague.
2. How did you view them in that moment? (Check one: Obstacle / Vehicle / Irrelevance / Person with valid needs)
3. How did you justify your own reaction or withdrawal?
4. How might your reaction have invited the very behavior you complained about?

Part 2: Action Plan for Getting Out of the Box
1. Target relationship or situation:
2. What are this person's likely pressures, goals, or concerns right now?
3. What specific conversation will you start? Draft opening words that acknowledge their perspective without self-justification:
4. What concrete support or accountability will you offer?

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in WorkshopBank as 'Enhancing Leadership & Relationships Workshop', which credits the underlying concepts to 'Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting Out of the Box' by The Arbinger Institute.

Retained the 3-step, 3-hour sequence from WorkshopBank and the core framework from The Arbinger Institute's 'Leadership and Self-Deception'. UWT supplied the Marcus/Priya case study scenario text, printable reflection questions, role-play steps, subgroup grouping math for odd counts, and private worksheet retention rules.

[WorkshopBank](https://workshopbank.com/tools/enhancing-leadership-relationships-workshop)

[WorkshopBank](https://workshopbank.com/enhancing-leadership-relationships-workshop)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/enhancing-leadership-relationships-workshop-workshopbank/