Might it help us to think outside the box if we took more time to consider the definition of the blasted thing? And indeed if we spared a thought for the actual thinking we are considering doing: will it be, as thinking, indistinguishable from the sort of thinking we do when we are happily thinking away, but inside the box? Or is this thinking to be simply an accident of geography, different from the normal thinking we do inside the box, except that we have taken our thinking outside?
Too much language in marketing and business consultancy is more about marketing than about analysis and useful description. It is designed to engender warm and self-flattering feelings rather than to describe something in a meaningful way. “Thinking outside the box about, er, innovation,” promotes the effect of rhetorical Viagra mediated by Valium. We get excited that using the language will produce the desired effect, but we are inured to the numbing awareness that it just ain’t happening.
Why does this matter? Isn’t all we mean simply that we are bringing fresh thinking to bear upon an old problem, and our brains just need to up their game? Well no, it may be true that brains need to get better at what they do, but defaulting to even woollier language – “fresh thinking” as opposed to “thinking outside the box” simply won’t do. Understanding “the box” as a system of assumptions and constraints that are to be set aside for the purpose of considering anew an old challenge will become possible when we accept these three rules of thumb in defining the critical word “outside”:
- We choose to move outside the box when we cease considering the challenge in terms of re-calibrating precedents and rationalising failure, and decide instead what new targets and outcomes will result from our course of action;
- We move outside the box when we open our minds to questioning every single assumption that has gone into constructing the box and keeping us inside it, to include the very language with which the box was built; and
- We stay outside the box when every new idea, new argument, new suggested action is worked consensually around the thinking circle and examined transparently and honestly on the evidence that is presented for its newness and intended efficacy.
Try and think of a problem that does not benefit from thinking in this way. It is pretty hard to do, and this blog will have a lot of fun running these three rules over so many of the problems that beset our modern brains. Watch this space for examples in applying this particular “rule of three”.
What will be revealed is that continued thinking inside the box will at best defend the status quo, whereas an honest move outside of the darkness of the box and into the light of reason will give our brains a reasonable shot at moving one notch up the evolutionary ladder.