What’s the connection between razors and proprietary frameworks?

A few years ago, I took a razor — namely Occam’s Razor— to all the branded frameworks I had created over the years. I also stopped using most other complex branded frameworks and models, as I’ll describe below.

My rationale for the disposal? Many frameworks, especially in neuroscience, compromise scientific accuracy from the start and over time. Neuroscience, my favorite discipline, continues to evolve quickly thanks to ongoing research and new data — and the frameworks don’t keep up.

When I coach, consult, and facilitate, I find that real-time science meets my clients’ interests and needs better than aging proprietary frameworks do. I’m able to explain the basic science principles that apply to my clients without them having to pay extra fees for frameworks and, often, the assessments that come with them. My clients understand the rationale, are able to follow along, and then integrate their new knowledge into their lives.

This orientation puts me in sync with Occam’s Razor, named after William of Occam, the 14th-century philosopher and theologian. Also known as the “law of parsimony,” Occam’s Razor directs you to shave away extraneous material to get to the crux of an issue.

Here’s the practical way to apply it: when you’re weighing competing theories or issues, consider the simplest one first. It may be the “best” fit for your situation — the most accurate, the most practical, or whatever matters most to you. Granted, the simplest answer isn’t always failsafe, but if you go to the source — the basic science — instead of an overly engineered model, you’re often in good shape.

Keep in mind, it’s sometimes hard to cut through the clutter. Consider a recent webinar I attended, where a consultant introduced three branded models in the first five minutes of a 45-minute session. My head started to spin, and I felt trapped in frameworks. The sheer number of them made it difficult to even remember the goal of the webinar and the problems these frameworks were supposed to solve.

Branded frameworks generally present three types of challenges, based on my experience:

1.Beyond the expiration date. The science has evolved, but the branded frameworks are frozen in time, operating well past their trademark date. Many have also entered “neuromyth” territory, presenting scientifically debunked concepts as truth. For example, several ideas disproven decades ago — left-brain/right-brain dominance, the triune brain model, and oversimplified “hemispheric” thinking — are still being sold today. Applying these neuromyths may not hurt you, but they don’t serve you well either.

2.Too simplistic. Packaging content into sexy, marketable frameworks distorts the original science. If you understand human behavior, you know we’re messy in how we interact with ourselves and each other. It’s hard to capture that humanity in colorful personality wheels, memorable four-quadrant grids, or finger-rubbing exercises, to name a few — but people try, and then propose these products as the answer to whatever problem you’re facing. Many of these frameworks also create an illusion of far greater certainty than actually exists. Real science embraces nuance, including the unknowns.

3.Off-label use. Coaches and consultants can become so attached to their frameworks — and the money they earn from them — that they pitch them even when the framework doesn’t fit the buyer. This becomes a cookie-cutter approach, the classic case of “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Granted, the science can sound hard, especially for laypeople without a scientific background. By comparison, branded solutions may feel like the easier path. But you have other valuable resources close at hand, including:

• Scientists who teach and write. They’re experienced in conveying complex ideas to students and laypeople alike.
• AI assistants, such as Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, and NILES from the NeuroLeadership Institute. (I’ve been using all of them for several months to test their neuroscience expertise. Beyond giving clear, accurate answers, they often cite source documents for further reading.)
• Practitioners who take the science seriously. Many share how they apply it with their clients — through blogs, newsletters, podcasts, workshops, private sessions, or direct conversation.

As one such practitioner, I wrote a related post, How to pull people toward opportunities rather than push them into fear, after working with several leaders who were getting pushback from staff for being too tough and demanding. This post draws on two models (my favorites along with Occam’s Razor):

1.Evian Gordon and his 1-2-4 model, which explains the brain’s core organizing principle: we constantly seek to minimize danger and maximize reward. This “toward reward, away from danger” dynamic shapes how people think, feel, and behave in every moment — at work, at home, at play, anywhere.

2.The SCARF model builds on Gordon’s work to show how social factors at work can trigger the same threat-reward responses as physical dangers. (SCARF stands for Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness.) Dr. David Rock, co-founder and CEO of the NeuroLeadership Institute (where I did my coach training and early neuroscience study) created SCARF with input from other neuroscientists.

As futurist and author Bob Johansen often advises, we need to work at being clear and simple — not certain and simplistic — to understand the future. Given all the complexity and uncertainty we’re dealing with, focusing on substance serves us best.