The Law Of The Instrument: Why You Use Old Methods

Abraham Maslow wrote in 1966, “It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” The law of the instrument or Maslow’s hammer as this bias was called, is over-reliance on a familiar tool. One tool for everything is the idea. Give a small boy a hammer. Suddenly, he finds that everything he encounters needs pounding. Train a scientist in a particular method of research, and he uses the method for all problems because he is skilled in the technique. The “hammer” can be anything in our disposal: skills, methods, tools, procedures, routines.

The law of the instrument makes us inefficient. It dictates that we become fixated on using a specific skill or tool we are familiar with. For any problem or task. That’s an issue, since many tasks and problems benefit from alternative means. Also, always resorting to the same skill or tool limits us from acquiring other skills which would serve us in other situations. Thus we try to force it, and the task takes much longer than if we had sought out a better method. One manifestation we all know of this is the education system. Every child is unique. Although that’s common knowledge, the education system operates on the idea that they will all be able to learn the same things at the same rate in the same manner.

It isn’t surprising that our areas of expertise which we have spent so much time building up would influence how we interpret events. How do you see an apple on the table? A chef would see it as an ingredient for something to be cooked, perhaps an apple pie or puree. The dietitian would see through the skin into the mineral and vitamin structure of the apple and its nutritional benefits. Finally, a child whose parents enforce the idea of “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” would see it as a mysterious fruit of health. Different people, different professions, different experiences, different interpretations. The result: we try to generalize our specific skills in other contexts.

It makes sense that this is the case. A doctor thinks like a medical professional, not like a mechanic. A teacher sees from the eyes of an educator, not the software engineer. This is why companies and research groups typically hire multidisciplinary teams with diverse skill sets. They know everybody wants to hit the nail with their hammer. So the solution is to bring in many different hammers to find the most effective and efficient way of doing things. It is simply easier to assemble multiple expert points of view than to try and force experts to think differently.

Real-world examples of the law of the instrument:

• Business Strategy: a company that has historically grown by slashing costs and streamlining operations might try applying the same strategy continually to boost innovation. But the research and development side of things is different. The narrow focus can cause the company to fall behind competitors who invest more heavily in creativity and new product development.

• Education: an educator who believes standardized testing is the best measure of student performance could neglect other forms of assessment. Relying solely on test scores can result in a curriculum that prioritizes rote learning over critical thinking and creativity. In other words, instead of well-rounded students, we get test-curated people.

• Healthcare: a physician accustomed to treating all ailments with medication could overlook alternative therapies or preventative care. Patients receive treatments that address symptoms. Not underlying causes. Thus the care only treats, but never cures.

• Software Development: a development team always opts for adding new features. As a result, they ignore opportunities to refactor and simplify their software architecture. The software becomes bloated and complex, making it harder if not impossible to scale at a certain point.

How you can use the law of the instrument as a mental model: (1) try the wrench — regularly assess whether you are over-relying on a single method or tool and explore new ways of solving problems (e.g. invite team members from diverse backgrounds in a meeting, try a new software, experiment with a different routine); (2) fit the screw to the driver — note when successes are due to a unique fit between the tool and the situation and when failures are caused by a mismatch so that you can understand how limiting your standard methods are; (3) be an evolving species — seek out new tools, ideas, methods, and skills that could complement your current approach (e.g. invest in training, workshops, or reading); (4) tailor your approach — a one-size-fits-all solution is a one-size-fits-none solution, “Is this the best tool for this problem or am I just using it because it is what I know?”