The Framework Fallacy: How Frameworks Derail Strategy (and what to do differently)
I love a good framework.
In my big-firm consulting days, I was often the go-to person for frameworks and methodologies. I loved their ability to impose structure on chaos. I still do. As an MBA lecturer, I teach a lot of frameworks. MBA programmes love them, possibly too much. And on LinkedIn, I see them constantly pushed by self-declared experts, but often posted without much context or guidance.
However. After a few grey hairs and a mountain of marked assignments, I’ve realised how easily frameworks can derail good strategy. So why do the same elegant tools meant to sharpen thinking also lead smart people into dead ends? The answer lies in six hidden traps.
What is a Framework?
First, let’s define what a framework is (and what it isn’t).
A framework is a tool. It takes a messy, complex reality and packages it into neat, often MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) boxes. That structure can be helpful, but also dangerous because it creates the illusion of order and symmetry.
A framework is different to a methodology. While a framework organises thinking; a methodology organises process. The two are different, but frequently confused.
In class, I use the example of building a garden shed. A hammer and saw are tools. They make the job easier. But they aren’t “shed building.” Shed building is the process: lay the foundations, cut the wood, hammer the nails, fix the roof, etc..
Six Ways Frameworks Go Wrong
1. Frameworks don’t give you answers
One of the most common mistakes I see (with consulting teams, execs, MBA assignments) is that people do lots of work completing frameworks, feel productive, then either get stuck or fail to reach a definitive conclusion.
That’s because a framework gives you structure rather than a strategy. It might help surface insights, but those insights still need to be synthesised, prioritised, and translated into real choices. There is no painting by numbers where the outcome is clear once you’ve filled in the blanks. I’ve seen countless strategy documents that follow the same tired formula: “internal analysis → external analysis → vision → goals → actions”, but which lead nowhere. Just a lot of analysis, with no real direction or clear set of moves.
2. Frameworks struggle to identify what matters
As my students will know, I have a special dislike for the SWOT analysis. Not because its logic is completely flawed – building on strengths is fine, so long as your customers care about those strengths! – but more because of how it’s usually applied.
Most SWOTs end up as long laundry lists of general observations. There’s no hierarchy of what’s important. The same fate befalls Porter’s Five Forces, the Strategic Choice Cascade, and Activity Systems when users forget to ask, “Which of these observations matter?”, which is where critical thought becomes important.
3. Frameworks gloss over trade-offs
Strategy is about choice, and choice involves trade-offs. But frameworks can sometimes reduce that tension. Populate the 2x2, fill in all four quadrants, tick the boxes, but never confront the uncomfortable truth that you can’t do or respond to everything.
Take Porter’s Generic Strategies. The whole point he was trying to make was that firms can only really pursue one path: cost leadership, differentiation, or focus. Some have refuted this, with merit. Nonetheless, teams and students try to claim all three. A robust strategy asks: Where are we focused? What are we willing to say no to so as to win?
4. Frameworks abstract away real-world messiness
Most popular strategy frameworks are intended to be universal. Yet, because of that, they abstract away the very things that make strategic decision making meaningful: market dynamics, regulatory constraints, customer behaviours, access to financing, or informal norms that vary dramatically by industry or geography. In environments where these conditions aren’t standard (emerging markets for instance), a good strategy might rely less on market positioning and more on building trust, navigating power structures, or improvising around bottlenecks. Universal, western-centric frameworks don’t always see that.
5. Frameworks are often misapplied
A hammer is not a saw. And Porter’s Five Forces is not a company analysis tool, it’s an industry analysis tool. Yet I’ve seen it used to assess internal strategy countless times because the origin of the tool was not understood and thus misapplied. Other common mistake include:
Porter’s Generic Strategies gets used as building blocks instead of mutually exclusive choices on how to create value
The Strategic Choice Cascade gets used to describe everything about an organisation rather than its key interdependent choices, often muddling the “How to Win” and “Must-Have Capabilities” choices
The BCG Growth-Share Matrix gets applied without any perspective on “right to win” or long-term value creation
Frameworks are powerful if used correctly. But, that’s a big “if.”
6. Frameworks can lead to sameness – when the entire point of a strategy is to compete differently.
The BCG Growth-Share Matrix is elegant and widely used, and a useful lens to think about aspects of a portfolio. But overreliance pushes firms to over-prioritise so-called “Stars” and under-invest in everything else. In doing so, they exit solid niche businesses, overlook potential strategic value of “Dogs,” and pile into the same growth segments, which inevitably became overcrowded and thus unprofitable.
The result of all this? A kind of analytical laziness that leads to mediocre outcomes. Not because people intend to be lazy (my students and clients are often very thoughtful and motivated) but because frameworks substitute the hard task of thinking with the illusion of rigour.
So what should we do instead?
Use frameworks, but understand their purpose and limits. Know where they came from and the assumptions or worldview they carry. Use them to sharpen thinking rather than to substitute for it.
Decide what’s important. Focus your effort on the things that matter to make a choice. Use your finite energy and time to unblock tough decisions, not to over-analyse the trivial ones.
Ask good questions. Then use frameworks to help answer them. Example: “Would this be a profitable industry for us?” (Think: Porter). “What capabilities do we need to win?” (Choice Cascade or Activity Systems).
Embed frameworks into a real strategy process (more on this to come from me). You still need to evaluate where you are, decide where you want to go, and figure out how to get there. The tools help you along this journey.
Invite challenge and tension. Debate options. Run toward the hard decisions. A framework can help surface tensions, but setting strategy is still a very human process.
Ensure that your strategy is positioning you to win not just today, but in the future… in your industry, with your context, and geography. Because that’s fundamentally what you are trying to achieve.
Final Word from the Savannah
A map, a compass, a weather report – they’re all useful tools. But they won’t help if you use them wrongly. In strategy, as in the savannah, tools are only as good as the judgement, instinct and assessment behind them.
If you need a seasoned guide to plot a profitable path, with the right tools and approaches, let’s talk. One conversation could change the direction of your entire journey.
