"Outside the Box" and "Disruptive Thinking"

[Marauder06]

What do you think? Is "outside the box" thinking a smokescreen for inexperience and ignorance? What about "disruptive thinkers" who might actually be "ill-informed non-thinkers?"

(excerpts)

Coming as we do from a Special Operations Forces (SOF) background, we recognize full well the value of unconventional thinking and innovation in the military arts. Over the years, however, we have seen too many uniformed personnel of all ranks and services wear the ignorance of their profession as some kind of badge of honor. An unfortunately large number of purported military professionals like to puff out their chests and say “I think outside the box” when a more accurate and objective statement would be, “I don’t really understand the fundamentals of my profession and don’t want to take the time to learn.” This attitude puts them, their men, and the mission at risk.

What many people don’t realize is that the ability to observe, orient, decide, and act “outside the box” usually comes after many years deliberately spent *in* the box, learning the ropes and developing a baseline of what works, what doesn’t work, and what just might work if the situation is desperate enough. What some chalk up to “outside the box” thinking is simply the result of flexibility gained from deep experience. It’s not something any of us are born with necessarily, it’s something that takes time to develop. But like many skills practiced by special operations forces, people look at the results and misjudge what it took to get to that point. Because SOF often make innovation, improvisation, and adaption look easy, people think it *is* easy. They never see the years of study, practice, effort, and yes, failure, that it took to get to that point. So they try to emulate what they think they see, and many times they fail. Miserably.

A close catchphrase cousin of an “out of the box” thinker is the “disruptive” thinker. In fact, the terms are almost interchangeable. But whereas the “outside the box” thinker considers himself an innovator, the “disruptice” thinker seeks to make a name for himself by attacking the status quo. The major problem with some people who think of themselves as disruptive thinkers is that they are actually argumenative, ill-informed non-thinkers. Creative thinking is one thing; disuption of the unit and/or mission is something completely different, especially when the “disruptive” idea is nothing other than a poorly-implemented application of some theory that was vaguely mentioned in a popular book, seen in a movie, or covered in a military education course or a graduate school business class. Too many “disruptive thinkers” lack the intellectual and experiencial depth to understand the fundamentals of both the status quo they are challenging and the ideas they espouse to fix it, so they merely focus on repeating buzzwords and relishing the resulting attention they receive for their “disruptive” ideas.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I can't speak to the SOF side, but I am a firm believer that you have to know and understand the inside of the "box" to start playing around on the outside.

I like using basic small unit tactics vs TTP's when discussing "outside the box thinking". Soldiers have to have a basic level of understanding in SUT before you can get feedback on how to adjust and develop the TTPs of the unit. If you don't have that, you have dismounted IED clearance patrols in Baghdad in the summer of 2004. You have to have smart people who understand the basics, to break away and find solution that the basics do not properly address.

I view the "inside the box" as the standardization of the organization, either it be through doctrine or practice. The "outside the box" is what we don't know or have yet to understand. I am not sure if that is the way others view it, but with that analogy, you would have to know and understand what we know, before you can explore or discover what we do not know.

My$.02

 

[policemedic]

I fully agree that in order to lay claim to the type of outside the box thinking that we see SOF use so successfully one must have a complete understanding of, and abiding respect for, the box itself. As the author correctly states, this cannot occur without a great deal of experience within the larger system.

It's OK--sometimes even necessary--to choose a course of action that lies outside established practice. But doing so should only happen when the individual understands the conventional practice, why it is in place, what the alternatives are, why it won't work, and what the potential consequences are for taking the path less travelled. The (unseen and often unrecognized by the peanut gallery) comprehensive knowledge of the conventional system SOF troops possess is what allows them to make what appears to others to be intuitive decisions and demonstrate flashes of unconventional brilliance.

This is true in any organization where individuals are separated from the main body to perform specialized duties.

 

[Ranger Psych]

Exactly. Non-standard operations, techniques, and processes require a complete understanding of what we normally do, why it works when it does, and why it won't work for a SPECIFIC situation... at which point, then you can go sideways, under/over/through, etc.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The problem is that everyone claims to be able to think outside the box or everytime there is a tasking you hear people say think outside the box. It has turned into just another catch phrase rather than being an indicator of a person who can perform in a manner outside the norm. Rather than everyone being able to think outside the box, more people need to be able to get the job done.

 

[DA SWO]

Loss of professionalism and understanding of "the big picture" has diminished the force.

Outside the box assumes you know what's in the box.

Just like managers patting each other on the back and proclaiming their leadership/warrior skills.

A buzz word, and nothing more.

 

[Board and Seize]

Commence thread resurrection! (Wildass Acronyms Comingto You! [WACKY])

While I agree with the above posts:

• 'Outside the box thinking' (OtBT) is often used to conceal bad thinking
• Effective OtBT requires having first mastered the box

I think that true OtBT hasn't really gotten a fair shake here. To be clear, I am dismissing the cases of:

1. non-OtBT (that is disguised as OtBT)
   
2. bad OtBT (someone attempting to think OtB without first mastering the box)

Having identified these as either 'bad' OtBT or not really OtBT at all, let's consider 'good' OtBT... after looking at ItBT. While there is much to be said for standardization and putting core competencies into a box with sharply delineated lines, there are plenty of undesirable side-effects. Perhaps the worst (to my mind) comes up in standardized education. You can apply this as far as you like, but I will confine myself to military education.

The USA TRADOC and USMC formal schools that I have been to utterly failed to educate. Sure, they passed on information. But when the box is your world, nothing outside the box matters. Let's imagine that the people who created a box, say for Subject X, deeply understood X and had really mastered it. They knew all the intricacies, challenges, ramifications, and could field any question - no matter how probing or detailed. Thanks to this deep understanding, they were able to cherry-pick the most salient and crucial details from their body of knowledge and put them on paper. They finely tuned where the box's lines would be - what would be included, and what wasn't strictly necessary. BOOM! formal POI/COI/Doctrine/Box/whatever.

Next, these masters train the first batch of instructors on X. These guys get pretty good, but few (if any) get to the masters' level. They train students and do a good job. They are able to field most questions, and see how to properly apply the information in the box to unanticipated situation. Personnel rotations happen, and the first instructors train their replacements (Inst2).

They do a pretty good job. Inst2 master the information, but few (if any) get to Inst1's level... Do you see where I am going with this? Imagine an original document photocopied. Then the copy is copied. And so on. Eventually you get to a point where Inst(n) know the information but have NO understanding beyond the material presented in the class. Times, people, equipment, and situations change. The information becomes (inevitably) outdated in some aspects. Inst(n) have zero (or at best, little) ability to even recognize this. Students who suggest this are dogpiled. To suggest that the material is wrong is to suggest that the instructor is wrong. The instructor often places their identity of sense of ability/achievement on how well they mastered the info. If the info is wrong, their ego necessarily is diminished.

So you get a feedback loop that discourages people from looking OtB to improve stuff ItB. People growing up ItB learn not to question the box, or even try to develop an understanding, as they will be punished (in some sense). That is how they are trained. Eventually they take over the box and continue the cycle. It's like the Rhesus money experiment I mention in my letter to Amos.

I am reminded of Stephenson’s 1967 experiment on rhesus monkeys which went anecdotally like this: Five monkeys are placed in a cage. Also in the cage is a banana hanging from the ceiling above a ladder. Predictably, the monkeys attempt to retrieve the banana. However, the researchers sprayed all of the monkeys with ice-cold water before they manage to get the banana. This procedure is repeated until the monkeys have leaned how not to behave. At this point one trained monkey is replaced with a naïve one who hasn’t learned the rules. He sees the banana, and goes to get it. The other four monkeys promptly beat him up to avoid being sprayed with the water. This process is repeated until none of the original monkeys who were sprayed remain. One more monkey is replaced, and the new one goes for the banana. He is beat up by the other four – none of whom ever witnessed the original situation or reason for avoiding the banana. They have knowledge without understanding. And that knowledge is quite possibly flawed.

It only takes a few generational cycles before you have a box that is washed out.

SO, I am not a fan of strictly ItB cultures. They are inevitably toxic. Having a community that is passionate and cares deeply about the subject allows continual revitalization of the box, which helps to diminish this negative feedback vortex of doom. But even for those groups, the revitalization has to be inspired OtB, because boxes have little depth. I think that the military tries to alleviate this by having a series of larger and deeper boxes nested. That way senior enlisted and officers master a bigger box which encompasses the junior box.

I'm running out of time and have to run to class. Let me sum up by saying that, properly executed 'good' OtBT is a good thing. It can be uncomfortable if the box is so degraded that it is challenged. Especially in those cases however, the OtBT is crucial.

Whew!

-B&S

 

[ArtsAndFieldCrafts]

Board and Seize nailed it. Much of what is "in the box" is gained through hard lessons learned initially, and is assumed to be therefore infallible by the second or third generation from the framers of "the box." I have a personal rule regarding these matters. If someone cannot clearly explain the initial conditions for the adoption of a doctrine, tactic, or tradition, I consider it fair play to question and improve. Each problem is guaranteed to have some subtle nuances that are worthy of a critical analysis without prejudging what your plan will be by dogmatically sticking to legacies that may not apply. You change even one piece on a chess board and it's an entirely new board that needs to be examined.

 

[Marauder06]

This article popped back up in my FB feed today. I think it’s a good reminder about how useful a doctrinal grounding can be, even in SOF.

Re-Challenging the "Outside the Box" Fallacy • The Havok Journal

 

[Devildoc]

A FAG (Former Action Guy, from Delta) and I were shooting one day, we were talking a little bit about this, brilliant in the basics, that sort of thing. He said that sound doctrine should be the foundation of any unit, branch, curriculum, program, whatever. He said before you can start thinking outside the box, you need to know what's inside the box and be comfortable with that.

 

[LibraryLady]

A FAG (Former Action Guy, from Delta) and I were shooting one day, we were talking a little bit about this, brilliant in the basics, that sort of thing. He said that sound doctrine should be the foundation of any unit, branch, curriculum, program, whatever. He said before you can start thinking outside the box, you need to know what's inside the box and be comfortable with that.

Box, schmox....

I learned it as - know the rules inside and out so you know when to properly break them.

LL

 

[Marine0311]

A FAG (Former Action Guy, from Delta) and I were shooting one day, we were talking a little bit about this, brilliant in the basics, that sort of thing. He said that sound doctrine should be the foundation of any unit, branch, curriculum, program, whatever. He said before you can start thinking outside the box, you need to know what's inside the box and be comfortable with that.

I like that.

I recall either @Teufel or @Marauder06 said the same or similar thing on here.

 

[SpitfireV]

*Sometimes* that lack of institutional knowledge can be beneficial, in context, since it doesn't also allow any of the institutional thinking since it doesn't know it. For example, a newbie at work might say "why do we do x like that, we could do it in y instead." The idea can be entertained and the institutional knowledge explained at the same time, so long as the receiver is receptive to new ideas. Who knows, it might even work but it should require explanation to the person why it might or might not work and why things are done the way they are.

 

[Ranger Psych]

*Sometimes* that lack of institutional knowledge can be beneficial, in context, since it doesn't also allow any of the institutional thinking since it doesn't know it. For example, a newbie at work might say "why do we do x like that, we could do it in y instead." The idea can be entertained and the institutional knowledge explained at the same time, so long as the receiver is receptive to new ideas. Who knows, it might even work but it should require explanation to the person why it might or might not work and why things are done the way they are.

That's the way to do it. I was blessed on the FD I was with, with an LT and Chief that would hear me out for ideas. If they made more sense than what we did now, then we'd test it next training evolution to see what worked better with our people. Big thing was, I had to remember things like "not everyone can carry a 35' rescue ladder" and "not everyone can reach the top of the engine from the ground" etc. lol

 

[BloodStripe]

With institutional knowledge comes group think. It also creates confusion to new people. It sucks being that new person in a high performing unit and not knowing what you don't know, but its also easier to ask why in those types of organizations. With that though, I think some people misconstrue when you ask why. Some people take it as a negative. I'm all about asking 5 why's, but it's also important to know when to ask it. When ordered to do something, you do it. Afterwards you can then ask why but using your appropriate chain.

 

[Devildoc]

With institutional knowledge comes group think. It also creates confusion to new people. It sucks being that new person in a high performing unit and not knowing what you don't know, but its also easier to ask why in those types of organizations. With that though, I think some people misconstrue when you ask why. Some people take it as a negative. I'm all about asking 5 why's, but it's also important to know when to ask it. When ordered to do something, you do it. Afterwards you can then ask why but using your appropriate chain.

Maybe we're talking in a couple different languages. Institutional knowledge is partly there to prevent confusion to new people. It's usually an "indoctrination" during onboarding or initial training. Institutional knowledge and doctrine are how armies, large companies, etc., run seamlessly. But you are right in that in a leadership vacuum it becomes stagnated, groupthink. That's why leadership is so important, but also why mid-level people are so important, in being able to communicate variance from SOP. Ultimately, they are the ones who can change SOP.

 

[BloodStripe]

Maybe we're talking in a couple different languages. Institutional knowledge is partly there to prevent confusion to new people. It's usually an "indoctrination" during onboarding or initial training. Institutional knowledge and doctrine are how armies, large companies, etc., run seamlessly. But you are right in that in a leadership vacuum it becomes stagnated, groupthink. That's why leadership is so important, but also why mid-level people are so important, in being able to communicate variance from SOP. Ultimately, they are the ones who can change SOP.

Same language. It takes a while for you to learn institutional knowledge, so once its known you keep doing it that way because that's how its always been done.

 

[Devildoc]

Same language. It takes a while for you to learn institutional knowledge, so once its known you keep doing it that way because that's how its always been done.

I will have to disagree with you. Or, let me put it in a different way: could you be a Marine without boot camp; or an infantry Marine without SOI? I know 18x is the street-to-SOF, but can someone bypass basic training, infantry training, and airborne, and go straight to the Q?

Teaching and promoting institutional knowledge (IK) and doing things because that's how it's always been done are not mutually inclusive. In fact, I will say that any company, business, service branch, that does not engage in teaching IK and sound doctrine will fail.

IK and doctrine, to loop back around to "inside the box thinking", are foundational, the bottom of the pyramid. In my own setting, clinical education and professional development, I cannot make someone a good emergency department RN without them doing a thousand IVs, the same way, every time. Only then can they learn the shortcuts, the tricks-of-the-trade. They have to understand the policy on why we do what we do and how we do it.

But stagnation and regression are a real thing. If you do not actively combat it by research, best practices, and evidence-based practice, then it can lead to an it's-how-it's-always-been-done thing, which will also make any endeavor fail.

I have never been part of a large organization where it's been a this-is-how-it's-always-been-done culture. I have been in some departments; invariably the staff turnover was high or they replaced leadership. We've always sought to actively make ourselves better, especially in IK and doctrine, so we could advance and think outside the box.

 

[BloodStripe]

Of course they aren't, but IK absolutely leads to group think. IK to me is something that isn't written down but is just known as how to do something based on culture and experiences, so maybe we are speaking differently as to the definition of IK.

 

[Board and Seize]

Relevant post over at SSC on Socratic grilling - asking questions to build understanding, misunderstood as status plays.

This is a contributor to the degeneration of organizational knowledge into dogma or groupthink, as new members are actively prevented from mastering* the box. This leads directly to the photocopy of a photocopy of a photo... trend, or the rhesus monkeys beating each other.