Breaking Free from Rigidity: How Insecurity Leads to Rigid Thinking and Limits Progress

From my experience, I’ve seen how frameworks can be both a blessing and a curse. They provide valuable structure but can easily become crutches. When I’ve worked with people who lacked the confidence or skills to adapt these systems to real-world challenges, I noticed they often clung to them rigidly.

In my work across product management, UX, engineering, and agile software development—including Scrum and Lean—I’ve observed similar patterns. Inexperienced professionals sometimes rely too heavily on frameworks, rules, processes, or checklists, rather than focusing on delivering real value or making an impact. Through this post, I want to explore why rigid adherence to frameworks can limit meaningful outcomes and how we can shift toward more flexible, value-driven thinking.

The Safety Net of Rigid Adherence

In my experience, rigid adherence to frameworks often stems from a lack of confidence and can stifle real progress. Here are two examples that illustrate this:

Scrum Masters and Timeboxes: I’ve observed Scrum Masters who cling too strictly to Scrum rules and timeboxes. For instance, I once watched a team’s daily standup where the Scrum Master insisted on ending the meeting right on time, despite an ongoing, crucial conversation. Instead of facilitating the discussion toward a meaningful outcome, the Scrum Master’s rigidity in following timeboxes hindered the team’s ability to process important issues. This approach can frustrate team members, who may feel their concerns aren’t being fully addressed or heard. The focus on adhering to the clock rather than facilitating valuable discussions reflects a deeper issue: an overreliance on rules for the sake of compliance, rather than focusing on the real needs of the team.

Product Managers and Process Over Value: Another example comes from my experiences with product managers who are so focused on following a structured process—be it for ideation, discovery, backlog maintenance, testing, or iteration—that they lose sight of the ultimate goal: delivering value. I’ve seen meetings where the discussion revolves around process-related questions, creating an illusion of progress, while the critical conversation about cost versus value or impact gets sidelined. This process-centric approach can create a false sense of accomplishment while missing out on what truly matters: achieving meaningful outcomes that make a real impact.

These examples highlight how rigid adherence to frameworks and processes can become a safety net, providing a false sense of security and progress. Instead of fostering true innovation and value, this rigidity can lead to missed opportunities and frustration. It’s worth questioning whether our adherence to rules and processes is genuinely serving our goals or just acting as a crutch for our insecurities.

Tools, Not Chains

Frameworks, processes, and rules should guide us, not constrain us. Often, individuals with less confidence in their own skills and work cling too rigidly to these structures, treating them as solutions rather than tools. This over-reliance can obscure meaningful progress and impact. The key to effectiveness lies in using these structures flexibly, with the confidence to break rules or ignore frameworks when it serves to add real value. Reflect on how sticking rigidly to frameworks might have limited outcomes and consider how trusting in your skills and having the confidence to adapt or challenge these structures can lead to more impactful results.

The Psychological Comfort of Rigidity

Psychological research suggests that individuals with lower confidence often find comfort in rigid structures and rules. This phenomenon is linked to a desire for predictability and control, which can be reassuring for those who feel uncertain about their abilities or decisions. Studies have shown that rigid adherence to procedures can serve as a coping mechanism to reduce anxiety and avoid the discomfort associated with ambiguity (Wheaton, 1994; Carver & Scheier, 1981). This reliance on structured frameworks can create a false sense of security and progress, as individuals may feel more comfortable following established rules rather than navigating complex, uncertain situations. Such behavior is not necessarily about inefficacy but rather about the psychological safety that predictable structures provide, which helps mitigate feelings of inadequacy or fear of failure (Rosenberg, 2015). Understanding this dynamic is crucial for recognizing how confidence in one’s skills can lead to more flexible and impactful use of frameworks.

Balancing Structure with Creativity

Balancing structure and creativity has been crucial in my work. One strategy I use is to view frameworks as flexible tools rather than rigid rules—adjusting timeboxes, shifting priorities, or rethinking processes when they don’t serve the bigger picture. It’s about questioning whether a process is adding value or just being followed for its own sake. For those still building confidence, start small: try modifying less critical processes to see how flexible approaches impact results. Over time, as you gain more experience and trust in your own judgment, you’ll feel more comfortable breaking rules where necessary to drive better outcomes. Growth comes from embracing this balance—allowing creativity to complement structure rather than be constrained by it.

Conclusion: Rethinking for Impact

In this post, we explored how rigid adherence to frameworks, processes, and structures can limit progress, particularly when confidence is lacking. The key takeaway is that these tools should serve as flexible guides, helping us navigate complex situations without constraining our ability to think creatively and make impactful decisions. Confidence in your skills allows you to adapt, bend, or even break the rules when it adds value.

I encourage you to reflect on your own practices: Are you using frameworks to support your goals, or are they holding you back? How might a more flexible approach enhance your work and the results you deliver?

I’d love to hear your thoughts. How do you balance structure with creativity? Have you faced challenges breaking away from rigid processes? Share your experiences—and disagreements—in the comments below. Let’s continue the conversation.

Sources:

• Wheaton, B. (1994). “Self-Concept and Coping.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35(3), 207-222.
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control-Theory Approach to Human Behavior. Springer.
• Rosenberg, M. (2015). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press.