Last
week, I made a comment about the topic of conflict resolution through
collaboration beginning to seem repetitive as we had multiple assignments spanning
two weeks on it. This week, our assignments were really seeming to go beyond
repetitive to me as this blog is my 4th assignment of the week on
the exact same topic. As I said last week, though, that tells me that the topic
is important. Since we are creatures of habit, we learn through repetition. However,
I have to admit that tonight I finally had my “Eureka!” moment with the topic
and I feel that I finally have a basic working knowledge of the Cynefin
framework. (By the way, that is Welsh and is pronounced ‘kun-EV-in’.)
As I
said, I finally had that “Ah ha!” moment tonight. I know that I didn’t go into
great detail explaining the Cynefin framework in my last blog but the video
linked in my references is an explanation right from the mouth of the creator
of the model, Dave Snowden. The Cynefin framework is NOT a categorization model
but rather is a sense-making model (Cognitive Edge, 2010). Snowden explains
that in categorization models, the framework proceeds the data. That means that
as the data arises, you can just drop it into the appropriate “box” and know
what to do with it accordingly. Snowden states that “categorization is good for
exploitation. It’s pretty poor for exploration or during periods of change” (1:35).
In a sense-making model, though, the data actually precedes the framework. I
have been writing about the importance of recognizing where you are in the
framework (mostly to avoid the decision making pitfalls associated with each realm
of the model) but I truly have been looking at it through the lens of
categorization. In other words, I have been thinking about it as looking at
each decision and saying, “Okay. Here is the relationship between cause and
effect so we must be in this context or that so I need to avoid making these mistakes
with my decision making”. That’s really not how it works, though. There is a
fifth space that doesn’t really fit the other contexts (known/simple,
knowable/complicated, complex, chaotic) and that is a context of disorder. This
is where we actually operate most of the time. Snowden notes that when we are
here, “the trouble, then, is that we will interpret the situation according to
our personal preference for action” (5:33). I’m finding it difficult to find
the right words to express this but I think that when we are in that realm of
disorder – where we don’t know the context – we tend to try to categorize. We try
to make the situation fit into one of the contexts and we therefore run the
risk of miscategorization. That realization has really made me change the way
that I view this framework. It’s a minor difference in thinking that makes a
major change in our approach to and application of the model.
As
previously outlined, the Cynefin framework is broken into four main realms (not
quadrants) – simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic (Snowden & Boone,
2007). Just as a recap, in the simple context, the relationship between cause
and effect is known and the right decision is usually obvious. In the
complicated context, that relationship is a little harder to see but there is a
right decision – often multiple right decisions – that can be discovered through
expert analysis. In the complex context, the relationship between cause and
effect can only be seen in hindsight. Then, in the chaotic context, it is
impossible to see the relationship between cause and effect and decisions are
made to restore order.
There
are three ways that the Cynefin framework help leaders facilitate their decision
making process (Cognitive Edge, 2010). They first allow us to see things from
new viewpoints. Since the data precedes the framework, we are not just trying
to categorize the situations but rather begin to look at each situation as it
arises and try to move ourselves to the proper frame of dealing with that
situation. Over time, though, as the relationship between cause and effect
becomes more evident, the way that we deal with the same situation can actually
change. That is why we can’t just try to categorize each scenario because the
same situation with the same variables can actually move from unknown to known
and then we are operating in a different frame. Of course, the danger is that
we may choose to default to a preferred methodology but the idea is to adjust
our own approach to decision making to fit each situation. Second, the Cynefin
framework helps us assimilate complex concepts. Since the relationship between
cause and effect is observable, we are able to probe and adjust our methods as
needed. Ultimately, the idea is to handle situations from a knowable context. As
I just mentioned, that doesn’t mean that the situation itself will change. It
just means that we can learn the actual relationship between cause and effect. Third,
the framework allows us to address real-world problems and seize upon new opportunities.
This is not just a hypothetical categorization tool but rather is a true tool
that can be used for knowledge management.
As I
didn’t know about the Cynefin framework before this week, it is difficult to
claim that I ever truly applied it. I can think of instances that I unknowingly
operated in each context but I am dealing with a situation at work right now
where I am actively trying to apply this framework. I am preparing to move to
another center to take over as the Center Leader there. In order for me to
move, though, I first needed a replacement so a new Center Leader has taken
over my center. I am still available to guide and train him but I have taken a step
back and am letting him run the center as he sees fit. However, in a very odd
turn of events, he was notified on the day that he arrived that his conversion
to full-time recruiter has been denied by the Human Resources Command and that
means that he is going to have to return to an operational unit within the next
five months or so. This is a very confusing time for everybody on the team as “the
boss” (me) relinquished control but the new boss is about to leave so my new
center may end up being the same center where I already am. I really feel that
we are operating in a complex context right now. This is new territory for all
of us. The nature of the effect of the decisions that both he and I are making
right now are really unknow because we don’t know what leadership structure
will be in place five months from now. However, we are probing and observing.
If a decision is received positively, we are pushing is harder. For decisions
that the team seems to reject, we are able to stifle them quickly. Once the
relationship between cause and effect is better known, perhaps we can continue
to move to a more comfortable and knowable context. Only time will tell. In the
meantime, we just have to be patient, observe, and be prepared for the next
decision.
[Cognitive
Edge]. (2010, July 11). The Cynefin
Framework. [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8&feature=youtu.be
Snowden,
D.J., & Boone, M.E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard
Business
Review.
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making.
No comments:
Post a Comment