Frameworks are (only) a guide

When I first became a manager in the late 1990s, I stepped into a profession that I knew nothing about, so what I needed was a guide. 

It was provided to me in the form of the PRINCE2 project management methodology. However, what I quickly realised was that if I tried to apply the framework as it was written, it led to an overly bureaucratic, process-centric approach, when the reality was (and still is) that projects are human endeavours that rely on the relationships between people.

PRINCE2 has seven principles. One of them is to literally ‘tailor to suit the project.’ Even the framework tells you not to apply it carte blanche.

Prosci's ADKAR does the same for change, McKinsey's 7-S for strategy, Covey's Seven Habits for leadership. 

Similarly with my own Culture Dial framework. I use it with clients as the basis for change, however, it’s not so rigid that it gets in the way of the culture definition and evolution process.

Every serious framework carries the same instruction, ‘adapt me’. None of them are moral codes - they're maps. They show you the terrain, not which path to take when yours doesn't match the diagram.

I've watched people follow frameworks and their processes like scripture, ticking every box regardless of size, then wonder why nobody trusts them or gets exasperated by them.

The frameworks themselves rarely fail. They are built on research, logic and case studies that demonstrate their effectiveness. It’s the application of the framework that fails. Its worth depends on the judgement of the person using it - what to keep, bend or discard.

Skilled people always set the rulebook aside once they understand it and look to make it work for them.