As an individual who claims to always be prepared, I
thought I did a decent job at making decisions. I believed that I was strategic
in my thought process and my decision- making process was strong. But, this
class and this week, in particular, have taught me that decisions are not
always as straightforward or routine as they may seem. There are multiple
factors and situations where the decision process must be altered in order to
produce the most successful decision.
This week I had the opportunity to study the Cynefin
Framework. This decision-making model comes from a Welsh word and is properly
pronounced ku-nev-in. According to Snowden (2010), the actual meaning of the
word is “the place of multiple belongings” (0:42). The meaning of the word plays
an important role in the model’s five frames or contexts. In all honesty, I initially had a difficult
time understanding this model. Snowden (2010) stated that the difference in
this model is that the data precedes the framework wherein most models the
model itself precedes the data. How the Cynefin Framework model is designed
allows individuals to survey the situation before determining the context and
therefore determine the correct action or decision. Once I was able to let go of the idea of the category
driving the decision and realized it was the other way around, the model began
to make a bit more sense.
I as I critically evaluated the Cynefin Framework, I
determined five methods in which it can improve decision making. First, the
Cynefin Framework is dynamic and not a static system of decision making. Many
things in life do not sit still, so the system of decision making held by
leaders should also allow for movement. The dynamic nature of the model allows
for better decisions and more decisive actions. Secondly, the model allows for
communication. According to Snowden & Boone (2007), the complicated context
may require the help of an expert or another coworker. The complex context
allows for leaders and decision makers to set the stage and then take a step
back to see what works best (Snowden & Boone, 2007). I picture a leader
discussing the decision with their followers and then allowing the followers to
develop different scenarios to solve the problem Once again, this context
allows for leaders to communicate with others in an effort to produce the most
successful decision.
Another useful aspect of the Cynefin Framework is
that it can help build a culture to pre-plan as much as possible with the
understanding that dynamic changes may, and most likely will occur. Leaders
must understand that a culture of preparedness is important, but the
preparation must include change and the unknown. According to Snowden &
Boone (2007), “Circumstances change, however, and as they become more complex,
the simplifications can fail” (para. 2). Having an understanding of Cynefin
framework will help leaders prepare for change.
The third benefit of Cynefin framework leads directly into the fourth
benefit. This framework allows leaders and decision makers to vacate their
comfort zones. Snowden & Boone (2007) stated that managers sometimes rely
on specific leadership methods. The problem with relying on a single method is
that it could work remarkable in one situation and fail miserably in another
situation. This framework allows the leaders or decision maker to vacate this
comfort zone and begin making decisions based on other contexts. The final
benefit of the Cynefin framework is that it is a multifaceted model. The
framework allows for decisions to be flexible therefore not linked to one
specific action or context.
I mentioned that the Cynefin framework consists of
five distinct contexts and each quadrant has a different response. These five
contexts and responses are (a) simple- sense, categorize, respond, (b) complicated-
sense, analyze respond, (c) complex- probe, sense, respond, (d) chaotic- act,
sense, respond, and (e) disorder- the point where an individual does not know
the context in which they belong. Though each context has its response there
are instances where a decision or action lies across multiple contexts.
Individuals must be careful in situations where the context can shift during
the decision-making process. In these situations, the response must mirror the
context.
As I pondered the framework and contexts I realized
there have been many times that I have been in a situation that encompassed
multiple contexts. One situation occasionally occurs at work when creating new
scholarship projects in the accounting system.
When a donor decides to create a scholarship they
are asked to enter into a donor agreement. In this agreement, they specify the
amount that they would like to donate, the frequency of the award, the amount
of the award, specifics such as required GPA and number of hours being taken,
and the type of student the award should be given to. The donor can specify
programs such as athletics, science, math, humanities, emergency services,
general, etc. If a donor decides to give $10,000 and clarifies that the student
must be training in the police, EMS, or firefighter program then the creation
of a scholarship project is fairly simple. The Foundation projects are nine
digits long and the fourth through six digits are related to the type of
scholarship. In this case, the code for
emergency services would be utilized to complete the project number. It may
sound difficult but the process is pretty straight-forward. But, there are
instances where this simple decision or action can travel to the context of
complicated.
For example, say a donor attended the college and
would like to start a scholarship with the Foundation. During their time at the
college, they played on the baseball team, was involved in multiple theatrical
events, and graduated with a degree in mathematics. While completing their scholarship
agreement they state that they would like the scholarship to be awarded each
semester to an athlete, math student, or a student studying humanities. Now the
simple process of creating a project for the accounting system has taken a turn
and has become complicated. No longer can a code be used as the fourth through
sixth digit as there are now three codes involved in the decision. Snowden
& Boone (2007) stated that complicated decisions can be made easier with
the use of an expert. Levine (2009) hinted that face to face conversations are
a great way to solve a conflict or make a decision. In these situations, I must turn to members
of the Foundation to help me make a successful decision. These are the coworkers
who have spoken with the donor and better understand their wishes. They are
able to tell me which code to use to set up the project which returns the
decision back to the simple context.
I recently encountered another situation or decision
that covered multiple contexts. In February my girlfriend and I decided to take
an extended weekend trip to New York City. As we were researching the places to
go and things to see, we decided that we wanted to solely utilize the subway
system while in the city. When discussing our decision with family and friends
we were met with questions such as ‘Are you sure because that seems very
complicated? Are you sure you will not get lost?’ To be honest, this was also
one of our concerns but we were steadfast in our decision. According to NYC by
Natives (n.d.), “Most natives will
tell you that there is no better way to get around New York City then riding the subway.
It’s faster than driving (particularly in Manhattan), it’s relatively clean,
and safe if you follow some easy suggestions” (para. 2).
By the first
afternoon, we were astonished how easy the subway system in New York City was.
The streets are numbered one through approximately two hundred and twenty. One
set of lines runs north and south and another set of lines runs east and west. By
the first night, we were able to use the subway to find the residence in which
we were staying, go to Battery Park to get a view of the Statue of Liberty and
find the restaurant where we made dinner reservations. And two days into our
visit we believed we were experts of the subway system.
Snowden (2010) warned
about being complacent in the simple zone. He warned that if you start to
believe that things are simple and ordered and that past successes cannot lead
to future failure then you may find yourself in a crisis. This is what happened
to us with the subway. The morning that we were to fly back to Florida, we
decided that we wanted to go down to see Wall Street and the 9/11 museum. We
researched and realized they were in close proximity and decided that we had
enough time to see them both.
We took the subway
down, spent a little time at each location, took some pictures and decided it
was getting close to the time that we needed to head back in order to make our
flight. This is where the “simple” made its way to “complex” and possibly even
“chaotic”. That Sunday afternoon an event was taking place that we did not
foresee. Several subway lines were closed to clean the tracks as is customary
in NYC. As we went to our trusty line we realized it was closed. We
overzealously thought that we could walk a couple of blocks down to the next
subway stop that we saw while exploring. Bad news- this line was also closed.
The seemingly simple task of catching a subway back to where we were staying
was no longer simple because we could not find a train heading north.
We overheard some
local saying that they could catch the M to the 1 to the P to the 6 (or some
variation of those lines). To the locals, the system was still very simple.
They were able to use the Cynefin framework to easily travel between contexts.
My girlfriend and I were not prepared for the lines to be closed therefore
created a crisis. We were eventually able to get back to where we needed to be
(with the help of multiple locals and subway workers) and make our flight. But
this experience taught me that simple tasks can quickly shift to complex or
complicated context if the decision maker or leader does not expect the unknown.
Overall, the Cynefin
framework is a great resource for making decisions. The decision maker must take
a look at the situation to determine the context that should be used to make a
decision. But, they must also be aware of decisions or instances that can
encompass multiple frames.
References
Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into resolution. (2nd
edition). Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
NYC by Natives. (n.d.). New York City subway guide: Riding the NYC subway
made easy. Retrieved from
http://www.nycbynatives.com/visitors_center/nyc_subway_instructions.php
Snowden, D. J. & Boone, M.E., (2007). A
leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review,
85(11), Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making%20
Snowden, D. (2010). The Cynefin Framework. Cognitive
Edge Video. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8&feature=youtu.be
No comments:
Post a Comment