HomeResourcesMental modelsMan with a Hammer Syndrome

Man with a Hammer Syndrome

Over‑applying a favourite tool (“to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”).
Author

Abraham Maslow (law of the instrument, 1966); popularised by Charlie Munger as “man with a hammer”

model type
,
about

Maslow warned that if all you have is a hammer, you’ll treat everything as a nail. Munger broadened this to argue for a latticework of mental models. The error isn’t using a tool; it’s defaulting to it—because of habit, identity, or incentives—when the problem’s structure calls for something else.

How it works

Functional fixedness – prior success and muscle memory narrow attention to familiar moves.

Identity & incentives – careers, tooling, and KPIs reward one approach, so alternatives feel costly.

Availability & confirmation – data that fits the “hammer” is easier to see and believe.

Path dependence – early choices lock interfaces, metrics and talent, deepening the rut.

use-cases

Strategy – forcing a playbook (e.g., “enterprise sales everywhere”) onto mismatched segments.

Product/tech – using the same stack or pattern regardless of scale, latency or data shape.

Analytics – one KPI or method (A/B only, qual only) for all questions.

Organisation – applying a single management fad to every team or phase.

Investing – one style (value/growth/quant) even when market regime shifts.

How to apply
  1. Name the problem class – write the primitives: uncertainty, feedback, tail risk, constraints, time horizon.

  2. Generate three plausible frames – e.g., bottleneck/flow, EV under uncertainty, incentives/game.

  3. Match tool to structure – pick models whose assumptions fit the primitives (queues → Little’s Law; tail risk → fat tails; rivalry → game theory).

  4. Run a “hammer test”If we couldn’t use our default tool, how would we do this? Write the alternative.

  5. Seek disconfirming evidence – cases where the favourite approach failed; set a switch criterion in advance.

  6. Split explore vs exploit – small safe-to-fail probes with alternate tools alongside the core.

  7. Design incentives for pluralism – reward clean kills, not just wins; rotate reviewers and methods.

pitfalls & cautions

Model soup – adding tools without choosing; decide, don’t hedge forever.

Cargo-culting – copying a tool’s rituals without its assumptions.

One KPI to rule them all – Goodhart’s law turns the hammer into the game; pair outcome and counter-metrics.

Status quo grip – switching costs and sunk time mask better-fit methods; budget for migration.

Overcorrection – abandoning a proven hammer where it does fit; keep domains of applicability explicit.