A632.8.3.RB Reflections on Cynefin Framework

Create a reflection blog based on critically thinking about how the Cynefin Framework can benefit your decision-making. Consider the chart on page 7 of the HBR article A Leader's Framework for Decision Making and discuss decision-making in multiple contexts; include two specific examples of decisions in multiple contexts that you have made. Detail the considerations from the various contexts that influenced your decision.  Critically assess the Cynefin Framework and describe 5 ways it can provide an improved context for decision making.

           The Cynefin Framework argues that certain contexts call for a different approach to decision making. The Cynefin Framework shows how the one-size-fits-all approach to decision making doesn’t work, and instead provides the decision maker a set of guidelines or rules to follow based off of the context or domain to help make better decisions (Snowden, Boone, 2007). The different domains and their rules are:

Simple: sense, categorize, respond

Complicated: sense, analyze, respond

Complex: probe, sense, respond

Chaotic: act, sense respond

(Snowden, Boone, 2007).

          With problems that are very complex and have multiple variables, each decision or solution to the problem could require the decision maker to use more than one domain at the same time (Snowden, Boone, 2007).

One example of a decision or problem that required multiple contexts in the Cynefin Framework was when we moved to Florida. We had already purchased our new construction home and we were promised that it would be move-in ready in December 20 when we arrived from Maryland. We woke up early on December 20, checked out of our hotel and headed over to the house to meet the movers that had arrived early. When we got to the house, we saw that we didn’t have a doorknob on the front door, and something had been placed on the other side of the door to keep us from getting into the house. We peeked through the windows and we could see that not all of the painting was done, other doorknobs were missing and our house was clearly not move-in ready. Needless to say we were a little upset and panicked. Due to the complicated nature of the problem we had to manage the problem from multiple contexts.

First, we had to remain calm, and take immediate action and called our real-estate agent to notify him of the problem, and communicate with the movers what was going on (chaotic). We had to make and receive multiple phone calls from the builder, real-estate agent and the moving company, which were our subject matter experts, (complicated) and we had to help relay this information to each other and the movers that were on site (complex). Once all of the variables and information was in place we realized that our only option that point in time was to move our times into storage, and re-booked our hotel room until we were able to move into the house (simple).

There were several factors that influenced our decision on how we responded to this problem. We wanted to call our builder, give him a few choice words, and tell them that he needed to get his guys over to finish our house immediately. However, after my husband and I calmed down from our initial anger we discussed that: 1.) We hired a real-estate agent for a reason and he would be the best person to contact the builder and they could work together to figure out what went wrong to help us find a solution to the problem. If we had done what we wanted to do, we would have applied the simple context vs. the chaotic context which would result in wasting our time. Even if the builder had granted our request we still wouldn’t have been able to move in, because the ultimate problem that none of us could see was that the county still had to sign off on the final inspection which would take at least another day to get done. 2.) The movers had a tight deadline to meet and if we held them up too long it would throw their schedule off and impact other families. As a result, we made the difficult decision to let them put our items in storage because as we started to get more information we realized that our situation was not going to be fixed that day. What also helped us in our decision making process was to realize that there were multiple points of failure in communication from multiple parties. As a result, it was better to just solve the problem than to point fingers and dictate what we wanted done.

My second example would be when I worked for the USO and the State Department ordered all nonessential personnel to evacuate out of Turkey. Since some military spouses and their families were given as little as 24 hour notice that they had to leave Turkey and move back to the states, we had to play a vital role in maintaining order and making sure that each family was supported. When we received the news from the Red Cross that we would be receiving military families from Turkey we called an immediate meeting with USO leadership and the Red Cross leadership to coordinate our efforts (chaotic). From there, we created extra shifts for volunteers and notified them of the situation (complex) and assigned them with different roles: check in, food server, children’s room, and floater so each volunteer knew what their assigned role was for that day (complicated). On top of this, we still had to maintain daily operations of the lounge (simple) and we had to coordinate with the Red Cross and help families with more complicated circumstances (Complex).

The variable that influenced our decision making was first and foremost: time. We only had about a 3 days to create a plan and get everything in order. Since the situation was chaotic and in constant transition we went with the “keep it simple” model. For example, several suggestions were made about finding entertainment for the families and providing them tickets to a ball game if they ended up staying overnight to boost their moral. This idea was quickly shot down. We agreed that families would be stressed and what they needed was someone to reassure them, a place to eat and rest, and a guide to help get them to their next destination. It was through this discussion that we came up with the idea of giving volunteers specific roles during their shift. It was also decided that my supervisor would be the lead point of contact since she ran the USO lounge. This simplified the communication between our leadership, the volunteers and the Red Cross, which looking back allowed us to move from abstraction/unordered to concrete/ordered (Snowden, Boone, 2007).

Critically assess the Cynefin Framework and describe 5 ways it can provide an improved context for decision making.

When we are in a state of disorder, the Cynefin Framework provides us a way to organize and conceptualize our thoughts and actions when making a decision. However, there is a bit of a paradox in the framework, it is visually simple and the concepts are simple, but you dig deeper into the framework it becomes much more complex especially when overlaying social and human systems into the framework (Snowden, 2002). In addition to this, another critique of the framework would be the paradox of understanding a problem in retrospect vs. in the moment. In other words, if we don’t know we are in disorder, how can we pull ourselves out of it and identify the domain that we need to be in? With that said however, there are some major benefits the Cynefin Framework as well:

1.)    As Snowden (2010) points out, what makes the Cynefin Framework unique is that the data proceeds the framework. In other words, we take the data and variables of a problem and then then decide which context is best used to work through the problem. In this way it changes how we organize the data and our thought process to make a better decision.  

2.)    Due to the fact that the data proceeds the frame work, it can improve decisions by slowing down one’s thinking. For instance, in the examples I gave above I had to constantly think about which context the problem was in. As a result I really had to slow down and take apart the problem bit-by-bit to decide on the context.

3.)    By identifying the appropriate context the Cynefin Framework can also save time. In my first example, if my husband and I had chosen made the decision to tell the builder to come to the house immediately (simple domain) we would have probably made people upset, and we would have wasted our time arguing vs. taking concrete action to solve the problem and make decisions.

4.)    The framework allows for creativity new solutions and the unknown to be explored and learned vs. being categorized (Snowden, 2002).

5.)    There is also a distinction between teaching and learning in the Cynefin model (Snowden, 2002). Simple and complex domains allow for teaching. As a subject matter expert I can illustrate to a supervisor what went wrong and why, and give my recommendation. However, in the complicated and chaotic domains there are too many unknowns so instead the Cynefin Framework calls the decision maker to me become a learner and explore the patterns and potential solutions. By understanding the difference between these categories I can make a better decision by understanding a situation that calls for teaching or learning.

References:

Snowden, D. F., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Boston: Harvard Business Review.

Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100-111.

Snowden, Dave. (11 July 2010).The Cynefin Framework. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8.