The Law of the Instrument

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

When Abraham Kaplan formulated his law of the instrument back in 1964, the concept was already an old one. People understood the idea intuitively—that you could fall into a sort of trap if you only had one tool handy, and the real danger was not considering that there could be other ways of dealing with a situation.

The law of the instrument pervades virtually every aspect of our lives. Some of these cases are easy for us to see: if your doctor is a surgeon, you’re probably going to be somewhat skeptical when she suggests you go under the knife next week.

Similarly, if you ask a chef whose specialty is Italian cuisine to throw a quick meal together for you, you’re not likely to be surprised to taste lots of garlic and olive oil.

Sometimes the law of the instrument is less visible, though, at least at the time.

One place where the law of the instrument is on display is in the field of sports. If a competitor has had positive results from something that helps them win, they’re very likely to dip into that same well again and again. This can become infamously predictable!

In the early days of MMA (Mixed Martial Arts), this was all too common. I would watch one-dimensional fighter after one-dimensional fighter slug it out, using their one overwhelming strength to win. Wrestlers in particular would use their ability to pin their opponents to the mat, overwhelming strikers with punches to get a “ground and pound” victory. Then, they’d seek to overwhelm the next one, two, or three opponents in the exact same way.

This worked really well, right up until the point where it really didn’t work at all. Kickboxers learned a little bit of wrestling, and everyone evolved to the point where they have more tools in the box. Today, it’s not even any fun for me to watch MMA any more since everyone has at least a crappy version of every tool. It’s just so different from the early experimental laboratory environment from the early 90s.

To make my analogy even more effective, there was a fighter who fit this description who had the nickname “The Hammer.” Seriously, folks, you could not make this stuff up.

Mark “The Hammer” Coleman was an absolute pioneer in MMA, and I enjoyed watching his rise… and fall. Coleman absolutely dominated everyone he fought in those early days, using his All-American level collegiate wrestling experience to take down and pin everyone in his path.

Over time, fighters figured out how to deal with this strategy, and as Coleman tried to hammer his opponents yet again, he discovered that the well had run dry.

Here’s a highlight video that does justice to how dominant Coleman was:

This happens with companies, too. Kodak is probably the easiest example: for a hundred years, they had dominated the world of traditional film. Looking back from today’s vantage point, and knowing that Kodak themselves invented the digital camera during the 70s, you might conclude that Kodak had the keys to the castle, and flushed them right down the toilet.

I can’t really disagree, but I might point out that this may have been nearly inevitable because of the law of the instrument. Traditional film wasn’t just in Kodak’s playbook; it was the playbook, and Kodak didn’t mind dipping back into this incredibly profitable strategy all throughout the 80s and 90s.

They kept using their hammer—traditional print—even when the job required a screwdriver.

And then, there’s the military. Few arenas can be more consequential in terms of the way the world turns out, and the law of the instrument is clearly visible at various times in our history.

The Russo-Japanese War might be the best example from war. It was an enormously important turning point for the global power structure, and in many ways it was an important precursor to World War I.

For centuries, Russia’s strategy had been centered around naval blockades and coastal bombardments, and overwhelming numbers of troops on the ground. This approach had been effective in several 19th-century conflicts, including the Napoleonic Wars and the Russo-Turkish War. Russia seemed invincible, and all they had to do was use the same playbook every time.

However, Japan was able to throw a monkey wrench right into the entire system and idea. During the previous decades, Japan had modernized incredibly rapidly, and their updated ships (and updated tactics) were able to outmaneuver and decisively defeat the Russian fleet at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. Russia’s heavily armored (and just plain heavy) fleet was no match.

Meanwhile, modern military tactics and effective use of modern weapons allowed the Japanese to outflank the Russians on the ground, never having to deal with a situation of overwhelming force.

Russia had essentially one tool in the playbook, and everything looked like a potential nail to their hammer.

What are some good examples of this from history? Can you think of a time when everything looked like a nail to you, personally?