Thinking Out of the Box - Some Musings

Credit - Cottonbro studio

The phrase "Thinking Out of the Box" has been around for a while now.

It was taken to mean that you should try and think beyond what you already know, or think in a different way than usual, or as mentioned in the Collins Dictionary - "to think in a different, innovative, or original manner, esp with regard to business practices, products, systems, etc."  

There are two contenders (that I found) about who originated the concept. I've no idea which is accurately the creator.  

1) From Wikipedia - "According to The Creative Thinking Association of America, Mike Vance popularized the phrase "thinking out of the box". Moreover, it is claimed that the use of the nine-dot puzzle in consultancy circles stems from the corporate culture of the Walt Disney Company, where the puzzle was used in-house."

2) From the Blood Project - It is said to derive from a famous puzzle created by an early 20th century British mathematician Henry Ernest Dudeney. The puzzle asks one to connect nine dots on a three-by-three grid, using four straight lines without the pencil leaving the page.

We know that the analogy of the box is a reference to the boundaries (preferences, dislikes and biases) within which we think, plan and work with the world around us and those people in it.

However, the phrase has been so overused over the past decades in today's world that it sounds jaded and doesn't generate as much excitement (or results?) as it should.

Some years ago, I came across this line by Terry Pratchett who said “I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it."

This line brewed within me since then and I came up with a few more enquires around this phrase, such as-

1. Where exactly is the box? Where does it start and end i.e. how big is it?
2. Who owns the box? How much did they pay for the box? Is it for sale now?
3. How much of thinking is allowed inside the box?
4. What kind of thinking is going on inside the box?
5. Who's paying for all the thinking going on in the box?
6. How much thinking will be allowed outside the box?
7. How much time should be spent thinking out of the box, before you go back into the box?
8. What happens to business as usual if everyone is thinking out of the box?

Well, that's a lot of "boxed thinking".  Should we consider these and other questions like them when we are asked to "Think Out of the Box"? 

I've no answer to any of these questions, and if you do, please write them here.  If you want to add your questions to this list, please do and I'll give you credit.

You may find these questions strange, but just perhaps, they may help you think with more clarity and purpose.

When Top Performers Collaborate

The ability of an organization's employees to collaborate effectively will provide superlative performance for the organization.


Have you wondered how some teams of Top Performers deliver extraordinary performance, and some deliver barely adequate performance?

I have been thinking on this for a long while now.  It started with football (soccer) where I watched a team of stars being shut out by an team of fairly decent players.  This was when Greece won the Euro Cup in 2004 by defeating a much stronger Portugal in the finals.  This was surprising since Greece was not expected to be in the finals in the first place, because they're not a team that's really well known for highly talented football players.  As you may be aware, such cases in sports are deeply analyzed and dissected in order to find out what went right or wrong during said match.  Lots is written about how they won, and why they won, and I won't repeat any of that.

I was also reminded of time when I was playing carrom (click for the rules if you're interested) in college with an extremely accomplished partner.  We were both considered to be among the best players in college.  Whenever we played as partners, we initially lost more often than we won.  We soon realized that these losses were because we waited for each other to pocket the pieces and attempted difficult shots, rather than do it ourselves.  Once we realized this, we quickly ensured that we took care of what was within our range instead of leaving coins for each other to pocket.  It made a tremendous difference to the number of games we won as a team. We reached second place in our college championships.

Both these examples helped me realize that top performers can get in their own way of achieving success, despite executing well-intentioned efforts.

More recently, I came across this video (which blew my mind) on YouTube where a few top rock guitar players did a cover of the Game of Thrones theme song, and actually made me think about writing this article.  Here's the original theme for comparison.

In the corporate world as an HR professional, performance management and people development are of key interest to me. I often wondered why someone did well for a few months, and then was fairly average, sometimes mediocre during others, and bounced back.  I realized that in organizations, there is rarely one single right answer to questions of performance or non-performance. While we tend to laud the individual performer, s/he would be nowhere (or extremely burned out) without a set of teams with whom he collaborates. For eg. even the sales performer needs a team from marketing, operations, finance and HR to help him / her deliver both his / her goals and theirs.  There are also external indirect teams of vendors and franchises that help drive success.  All of them may or may not be top performers

From the examples above, I have tried to dissect what it is that top performers do when they collaborate together so that they create something magical.  Here's what I came up with (I know this formula can work in the corporate world too):

1. They bring their A game to the fore.  They lead with their strengths.
2. They do their homework, and practice regularly (Deliberate Practice).
3. They listen to each other so deeply, that the handover from one person to another is seamless, effortless and hardly noticed by onlookers.
4. They keep newcomers briefed on their purpose as a group and what they expect as a contribution from the newcomer, without telling them what to do, allowing them to improvise and be creative.
5. They keep track of what each other is doing so that they pitch in, adding their own style, and making the entire track sound much better.
6. They are able to do all of this because they know what each one is capable of, what their styles are and are willing to allow each other to shine.  Simply put, they know each others' strengths and weaknesses, because they have shared these things with each other.

What should a leader do to get their top performers to collaborate?

1. Give them a clear brief on outcomes and timelines.
2. Give them necessary resources and listen to their requests.
3. Get out of their way.When you combine employees' strengths with a performance system based on OKRs (Objectives and Key Results), the levels of collaboration will accelerate and you will find quality output.

If you want to improve the effectiveness of your team's ability to collaborate or manage conflict, let me know by writing to me at ryanbbarretto@hotmail.com or calling at +919820155778 to set up a meeting / call.