The
Cynefin framework (Snowden & Boone, 2007) is a knowledge management tool
that decision makers use to help determine the relationship between cause and
effect. It is a model that is broken into four main quadrants that define the
context of the nature of that relationship (between cause and effect). The four
contexts are known/simple, knowable/complicated, complex, and chaotic. (My
discussion blog and general assignment paper that I wrote this week were both
between 1,500 and 2,000 words so I will just give the condensed version here of
what each means.) In the known space, the relationship between cause and effect
is obvious so the correct decision is typically undisputed. In the knowable
context, there are often multiple right decisions and the relationship between
cause and effect is not always clear but, through data analysis and careful
calculations, can still be determined. “This is the domain of experts, whose
expertise enables us to manage by delegation without the need for
categorization” (Snowden, 2002, p. 106-107). My friends that are in the wealth
management/financial analysis business make most of their decisions in this
context. The third context is complex (Snowden & Boone, 2007). Here, the
effects of our decisions often cannot be known until after they have been made.
We can only observe the results in retrospect. At that point, it becomes clear
what the relationship between cause and effect was so we can apply those
lessons learned and a repeat of the same situation will actually be in the
knowable/complicated context. The final context is chaotic which is when a
catastrophic event has taken place and it is impossible to determine the cause
of anything and all decisions made in order to simply restore a basic level or
order. For example, December 7, 1941 – 75 years ago today – was a catastrophic
event for our nation. All political decisions immediately after were made to
attempt to recover.
After
writing two other assignments on this, I was really thinking to myself – how does
this really help a leader make a proper decision? Just understanding the context
in which a decision is made doesn’t seem to affect what decision is actually
made. But remember – this is a knowledge management tool. Understanding the
context does actually help us navigate that knowledge and make proper decisions
by allowing us to avoid common pitfalls. Below are what I consider to be the
five most critical of those common mistakes as highlighted by Snowden and Boone
(2007).
1. When
we operating within the known realm – where the relationship is obvious between
cause and effect – we have a tendency to become very entrained in our thinking.
This means that we see the same type of scenario over and over and our response
to it becomes conditioned. When we make decisions the way that we have always
made them, we run the risk of lost efficiency. Just because something works
doesn’t mean that it is the best option. Just as a simple example of this, I
had to dispatch one of my recruiters to a courthouse in Brooklyn today. To get
there, he always walks over three blocks and catches the train there. He has
been going that way for 2 ½ years and that train does indeed take him to the
right courthouse in Brooklyn. However, it isn’t the most efficient way. I
pointed out that he could walk a block less if he went the other direction and
catch a different train that actually had one stop less along the way and end
at the same station (plus all of the stations along that route have cell
service in the stations so it is easier to keep yourself entertained along the
way).
2.
This entrained thinking can also lead to another pitfall within the known
context – complacency. We run a severe risk of becoming so comfortable with our
decisions that we don’t even notice any minor changes that can lead to
consequences, often extreme.
3. When
we are working within the knowable/complicated context, we are usually relying
on expert data analysis. A major concern here actually has to do with the egos
of those experts. It is very possible to hit what could be described as “analysis
paralysis”. This is very closely related to entrained thinking but rather than
the decision maker it is the expert that is so set in his or her ways that they
refuse to entertain other options. We sure see this in politics all the time!
Committees and think tanks full of highly educated people spend countless hours
and resources studying problems and come up with opposite solutions and it is
like they are sticking their fingers in their ears saying “la la la la la, I
can’t HEAR you!” to the other side.
4.
When we move into the complex context, we know that the relationship between
cause and effect may be impossible to tell until after decisions have been
made. We have to be patient and wait and see. The main threat here is to fall
back into a command-and-control state of mind. In other words, we run the risk
of slipping into a state of micromanagement thus losing faith and effectiveness.
We “demand fail-safe business plans with defined outcomes” (p. 8) but there may
not be a fail-safe plan and it can be impossible to determine exact results.
5.
Finally, when we move into a context of chaos – when catastrophe has struck –
we run one of the most serious risks of all and that is stifling the emergence
of new and ingenious leadership. The chaotic context is often where the most
creativity is involved in decision making because every decision is made in a
struggle to restore some form of order. How silly and petty of us to let our
egos prevent the rise of new leaders yet it happens all the time! Of course,
when those new leaders do arise, they have a major risk of their own and that
is an overconfidence in their abilities. Just because they have the answer for
restoring order to chaos does not guarantee that their decision making will be
optimal during times of normalcy.
When
I first arrived at my current assignment. I was excited about my new
opportunity to move into a management role. I moved out of the Times Square
office to the Downtown Manhattan office to be the Assistant Center Leader and I
was going to be training under one of the top Center Leaders that had just
arrived from the Nashville Battalion. Imagine my surprise when after my first
day of training – a process that it supposed to take three to six months – my Center
Leader had a death in his immediate family and had to have a compassionate
reassignment. This, to me, as a time of complete chaos. I am grateful that I
still had a leadership team that understood this and allowed me to find my own
way. They allowed me to make mistakes but also to thrive as I moved my center
back to at least a complex context. Unfortunately, once there, I didn’t know
how to identify the different contexts and I fell right into the pitfall of
moving into a command-and-control state where I demanded plans and results that
just were not possible to determine. I wanted to have my hand in everything
and, by doing so, I did am immense level of damage to the trust that my team
had in me that took several months to restore.
“Truly
adept leaders will know not only how to identify the context they’re working in
at any given time but also how to change their behavior and their decisions to
match that context” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 10). That ultimately is why
it is so important to understand how the Cynefin framework works.
Snowden,
D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal
of Knowledge
Management,
6(2), 100-111. doi:10.1108/13673270210424639
Snowden,
D.J., & Boone, M.E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard
decision-making.
No comments:
Post a Comment