The concept of the Overton Window – the range of ideas, policies, and arguments deemed acceptable to the mainstream population – was developed in the early 1990s by Joseph P. Overton, an electrical engineer turned policy wonk.

Overton maintained that think tanks could influence public policy without directly engaging in the political process.

He observed a fundamental truth: politicians are primarily followers, not leaders. They generally only support policies that the mainstream population already accepts as legitimate.

His theory argued that politicians are trapped: A politician cannot support a policy outside the ‘window’ of what the public currently finds acceptable, or they will lose their job.

The theory:

The window must move first: To get a law passed, you don’t lobby the politician; you lobby the public.

Think tanks can move the window: By advocating for ‘radical’ or ‘unthinkable’ ideas (like 0% income tax), think tanks make moderate versions of those ideas (like a 5% tax cut) look sensible by comparison.

After Overton’s death in 2003, his colleague Joseph Lehman formalised the concept, emphasising that shifts in this window are driven by changing societal values, not legislation.

The model categorises public discourse into six distinct stages:

• Unthinkable: Ideas viewed as fringe, absurd, or fundamentally immoral.
• Radical: Supported by a vocal minority, often used by activists to pull the window toward the centre.
• Acceptable: Policies beginning to be debated in mainstream forums.
• Sensible: Ideas viewed as pragmatic solutions to public problems.
• Popular: Broadly supported ideas that resonate with the majority of voters.
• Policy: Ideas enacted into law that form the new baseline status quo.

The theory is that if you want to change the world, lobbying a politician with an unthinkable idea is the wrong move. You must start at the ground level, utilising social institutions to build support and slowly shift the norms until the idea enters the window.

Society shifts. Women being able to vote was once unthinkable, whilst today the opposite is true. Same sex marriage was seen as a radical idea as recently as the early 1990s.

As Violette Mens writes:  “The Overton Window helps explain how societies change over time—whether for progression or regression. While it has led to positive changes such as civil rights advancements, it also plays a role in the normalisation of dangerous ideologies. Understanding this concept is crucial in recognising how ideas gain traction and shape the future of public discourse.”

Today, the digital era has poured rocket fuel on the concept – the window can shift very quickly indeed, for good or for ill. 

In a corporate setting, the public is the employee base, and the politicians are the executive leadership. The organisational Overton Window defines the range of management decisions, strategies, and cultural shifts that the people are prepared to accept or talk about.

Can we use this framework to introduce ‘unthinkable ideas’ to our organisations? 

Ideas can fall on a spectrum ranging from the unthinkable (which risks staff revolt) to the sensible and then finally policy (standard operating procedure). If an innovator or leader tries to force an unthinkable idea—like suddenly mandating a return to 1950s-style office culture—they risk losing talent and their leadership legitimacy.

We’ve seen two major examples of the Overton Window shifting in the workplace in the first half of this decade.

Prior to 2020, fully remote work for large-scale operations was often viewed as radical or risky for established firms. While technologies like Teams, Slack and Zoom existed, the window of acceptability for the mainstream was firmly anchored in a physical office presence as a proxy for productivity and culture.

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a kind of exogenous shock that forcibly moved the window. Overnight, what was ‘radical’ became ‘policy.’ As the crisis subsided, the window did not return to its original position. Instead, the baseline shifted to hybrid work,  which is now the ‘sensible and popular’  standard. Currently, attempts by some CEOs to mandate a full ‘Return to Office’ (RTO) are being framed by employees as old fashioned, or even deviant, within the context of the new Overton Window. 

Equally, a proposal for a four-day work week was long relegated to the unthinkable end of the spectrum, and seen as a threat to economic productivity and social order. However, the concept has moved through the levels of the Overton Window with remarkable speed. Academic studies and large-scale pilots have provided the hard data needed to shift the idea from radical to popular.

For many companies, the four-day week is now a sensible norm with some even pushing for three-day weeks, suggesting the window is still expanding.

But how do you introduce a radical, disruptive idea that isn’t driven by external factors such as a pandemic or changing attitudes to work? 

Innovators generally have two choices: play it safe with incremental innovation inside the current window, or intentionally step outside the window to force radical innovation. 

There are a number of ways that innovators can shift the window of acceptability: indeed new tools are now there for us to exploit. 

There has been an acceleration of the internal Overton Window which can be attributed to the emergence of collaborative technology. Platforms like Teams, Slack and Trello have created a nervous system for organisations, where messages and stories can act as electric impulses that synchronise the workforce. These tools allow for ‘swarming’ —a decentralised, collaborative effort where volunteers can coordinate on common goals with a speed impossible in traditional hierarchies.

Rick Falkvinge’s concept of “Swarmwise” illustrates how a small core of people can build a ‘scaffolding’ that enables a large number of volunteers to work toward a common goal. In an organisational setting, this means that any small group of motivated employees can effectively ‘permit any action’ on behalf of a burgeoning internal movement, provided they align with the broader goals of the swarm. He argued that this allows for an infinite variety and natural selection of ideas, where the most effective and appealing radical ideas thrive and eventually arrive at the executive suite as mainstream demands. 

I’ve seen fairly radical changes instigated by a small group of three or four people spread – as long as the conditions are right for their adoption. 

Additionally, internal ‘labs’ and and R&D/Strategy teams can serve as protected zones where radical ideas can be de-risked and prototyped in controlled environments. These teams act as knowledge brokers, translating external complexities into the ease of understanding required for wider adoption. By employing techniques like ‘anchoring’ —proposing a radical concept to make a moderate innovation appear sensible—or ‘strategic reframing,’ where controversial changes are rebranded, innovators can systematically expand the boundaries of what the leadership deems acceptable.

In the same way that podcasters and influencers are pushing the Overton Window to promote radical, and sometimes dangerous, ideas so our colleagues and innovators can encourage us to think the unthinkable.

If you want to change where you work, lobbying the executive with an unthinkable idea is the wrong move. 

You must start at the ground level, utilising social networks to build support and slowly shift the norms until the idea enters your organisational Overton Window.

Photo by chris liu on Unsplash