When out-the-box thinking becomes a commodity, Inside the box, thinking becomes valuable despite how counterintuitive it may sound.

Starting with Outside the box

The origins of the « outside the box thinking » go back to the early 70s. Sources often mention that the box is a symbol of rigidity, constraining imaginative thinking. And so, outside the box thinking is portrayed as a way to break thought patterns and open ourselves to new possibilities.

The rise of Dr. Edward De Bono’s lateral thinking method strengthened the out of the box thinking popularity, and below’s quote summarizes it well:

“You cannot dig a hole in a different place by digging the same hole deeper.” (De Bono)

Of course, classical or what De Bono coins as vertical thinking is valuable too. For instance, we naturally close the gaps when letters are missing in a word to identify patterns. We are sense-making and pattern-building beings. And that is critical to survival. But it can become a limitation and stiffen our ability to think creatively when we overly rely on patterns.

The challenge with Outside the box

Lateral thinking isn’t the issue but rather the term « outside the box.» The imagery and metaphor of « outside the box » have become mundane. And what is mundane becomes tricky to frame because we have stopped thinking about its meaning. We take it for granted. Secondly, it also sets - often unrealistic - expectations about people’s ability to be constantly creative, innovative, or resourceful.

Last but not least, it sounds as if constraints aren’t to be considered. Just think out of the box, no matter your reality and conditions. Yet we all know constraints exist (beyond those self-inflicted mental constraints we are so damn good at creating).

1. How do we define « out of the box » (and what results do we get)?

2. Where is the need to be creative if there are no constraints?

3. How do you consider your reality if there are no limits?

What if we think inside the box instead?

So what if we shift the perspective? Back in 2015, I read the book « Inside the Box Thinking.» Drew Boyd claims that more innovation happens when thinking inside the box and freed from what I’d label the tyranny of outside the box thinking. Drew believes that constraining our world and reality using five suggested templates brings better results (subtraction, addition, etc.). As much as I like the method beyond the madness, the latter matters more now.

More than the method behind the madness, it’s the madness.

The templates and methods suggested are great. Beyond that, it’s the mindset. It offers an alternative metaphor and way of thinking. One more chord to the arch when trying to find creative and innovative solutions.

It’s about reviewing our truths and predominant mental models. And that alone is a challenging endeavor. Applying an Inside the Box Thinking can help to work differently, seeing constraints as a helpful companion, reminding us that the path to go is not always the one that looks most attractive.

« Art lives from constraints and dies from freedom »

(Leonardo da Vinci)

Find out more about the five templates from Drew Boyd’s site: https://drewboyd.com/the-sit-method/