David Snowden's Cynefin Framework brings to bear a different, almost paradoxical, point of view in how a leader can work through the process of analyzing information and executing upon a decision. Although it provides a framework in highlighting different the different contexts of simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic, there is an additional variability accounted for by having a context of "disorder" in the center of the chart that recognizes how a situation can change or deal with multiple contexts, thus changing considerations like whether analysis or action processes need to be executed first in a situation.
Although I can't point to one specific instance, most any time I had to deal with troubleshooting at the office has been a multiple-context decision making process. Like many things in the military environment, there is generally some widely accepted or explicitly published immediate action that is taken. In the IT realm for instance, there is actually a measure of truth to closing and opening a program or checking connectivity, something of a simple decision context. But, some issues may not be resolved, and I may find myself needing to find a technician with further expertise to help solve the problem, shifting the decision making over to the complicated arena. Things can get more interesting if the initially simple issue turns out to be something more widespread or was simply an early indicator of a catastrophic issue with greater impact, necessitating a larger and more rapid response from the tech support end under a chaotic context. That in turn could evolve into a decision where more probing and analysis is needed to develop a fix action, thus making us work in a complex context. Overall, any troubleshooting action can potentially go from routine, to chaotic or complex, back to routine within the course of the same job.
I very recently wrapped up another multiple context situation with what seemed like a relatively simple decoration project. I initially started with a simple framework...my boss' boss said go and get some nice foam board pictures hung up in the hallway, I'll get you some points of contact. In the midst of this, I'm also still sharing some level of authority with another friend at the office, both of us doing this task alongside our usual duties. Time passes, and before long we're asking where the project is. We are briefly in a chaotic stage as we scramble to pick up the project again, and gradually I gain full authority over the project. After further friction though, I start working directly with our in house public affairs section, and start working out how we can get the pictures made and hung up within the budget we have. From leadership perspective, it looked like it would be a complicated context that would require only leveraging our resources and expertise. Upon further consultation though, there were lots of rules and regulations that created difficulties for production, as well as equipment issues, ultimately leading us towards a complex context and having to contact another base and see if we could arrange for buying the materials from their bigger print shop. Further disorder was injected, however, when our higher headquarters said we could utilize their printing resources, and we were then shifting between straight disorder and a complex context as we sought out different courses of actions and their respective pros and cons. Finally, among all these context changes, my local point of contact found these very nice frames that were laying around from an abandoned project, with which we could utilize our own photo printing resources and forget about the foam board. I agreed we should present the option, and the Commander really liked the look. We were able to shift back to a complicated context of coordinating with the necessary experts to print the pictures, mount them in the frames, and get them hung up on the wall.
The biggest consideration in dealing with these context situations, for me personally, was identifying where I could handle the issue myself and where I needed to seek outside assistance or expertise. From there, it was a matter of taking in the information I could get and executing an appropriate course of action or determining I needed further information or assistance. Admittedly though, my considerations generally haven't gotten more complicated than that, and I could well stand to do further analysis now better understanding what to look for from the Cynefin point of view.
As for five ways in which the framework can be helpful in improving decision making, first off, it gives some general guidelines for the "flavor" of a situation and can help one perceive how they should be looking at a given situation...whether its a routine issue or one that needs heavy thought. Second, the framework can help a leader identify what their role in a situation should be, whether to facilitate the gathering and synthesizing of information or make a command decision to restore stability. Third, the framework can highlight danger signals to look for to indicate when a leader should attempt to shift the context so the decision making process isn't pinned to one state. This leads to a fourth improvement, which is how to respond to a set of danger signals to restore a balanced footing, be it seeking information or pushing for different approaches to problems. Finally, having a grasp of the overall Cynefin Framework model can help a leader appreciate the potential scope for dynamic changes, hopefully posturing them towards readiness in reacting to, if not anticipating, changes in the context they're working in (Snowden and Boone, 2007)
References
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review
No comments:
Post a Comment