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.
As discussed in Snowden
(2007) managers all too often rely solely upon the most common of leadership
practices, which for the most part worked well as there was an expectation of
predictability and order at the time. What worked well in times of good, are
all to often be not applicable or fall short when there is chaos or
unconventional situations that require dire decisions made on the fly.
Good and sound leadership as
stated in the HBR article is not a one-size-fits-all application, which the
situation should fit neatly around, conversely, good leadership practices are
adaptable to a multitude of scenarios and situations. In many cases the
response has been predetermined to remove the human emotional element, assuring
complete and concise decision-making process such from directives that are
detail oriented enough allowing those detailed into the process to function
automatically. This would serve to address the particular situation at hand and
avoid micromanaging by leaders and managers because the best practice for the
situation is by definition, the best practice for the situation.
The Cynefin Framework has
sorted the issues into five contexts that are defined between the natures of
cause and affect. Four contexts are simple, complicated, complex and chaotic.
The fifth context, disorder, only is applicable after it cannot be determined
which of the four is predominant.
Simple contexts by
definition allow for a properly assessed scenario, requiring straightforward
management and monitoring. A good example of this would be when I was a
Maintenance Production Superintendent in the Air Force. I was responsible for
the overall repair, servicing and maintainability of aircraft, however, it was
the expediters, crew chiefs, mechanics and avionics technicians who were truly
responsible for troubleshooting, maintaining, servicing and getting aircraft
mission ready. Although I have a vast background in aviation maintenance, it
would have not been prudent or wise to micromanage the level or experience,
expertise or dedication to duty those young airmen possessed.
Another example-complicated context
can be equated to working in unfamiliar territory. Using my time in the
military as example of deploying to unfamiliar regions for a period of time and
often with service members of NATO countries was awkward, sometimes
standoffish, however it did allow for opportunity to work hand-in-hand with
service members of friendly countries and to learn new approaches to
accomplishing the specific mission in settings that were unfamiliar and
challenging. Through collaboration we as
service members learned how to work together and pass along specific and
non-specific details and formulate some best commercial practices for use in
real time contingencies.
Complex contexts are a
product of attempting to understand how and why things happen in retrospect.
Since we do not live in a vacuum the world is in constant flux, we often
attempt to utilize hindsight as a way to see into the future. As example if while
a Maintenance Production Superintendent in the Air Force, I allowed myself to
succumb to what-if scenarios with aircraft maintenance delays and mission
cancelations because of those delays. I would not have been as effective
because I would not have already had in-place contingencies, spare parts,
personnel available to fix faults or the ability to defer maintenance actions
as a way to complete missions. I/we as discussed in Snowden (2007,) probed
first, sensed and then responded appropriately.
Chaotic Contexts and
outcomes are not the byproduct of effective crisis management, but rather
establishing order and ascertaining where stability is, and is not. For
example, while in the Air Force I was a volunteer firefighter in my local
community. As an Incident Commander often commanding multiple stations and
departments with a mutual aid agreement, I was responsible for instilling a
sense of calm through effective communication and leadership to those I was
responsible for. The bottom line, their safety and well being was my top
priority, assisting, rescuing and rendering aid to those caught in a
conflagration was secondary. Although from the on-set that may seem like a
callous manner, and in some ways it is. The reasoning is simply we were taught
at the fire academy that it is NOT OUR EMERGENCY. We are there to simply render
aid to those and save lives and property (if able). Those under my command
needed and had a right to know that I had their back and would pull them out
before the potential for more lost lives in something that simply was out of
control.
Reference:
Snowden, D.J., and Boone,
M.E. (2007). A leaders framework for decision making. Havard Business Review. Retrieved from http://www.mpiweb.org
No comments:
Post a Comment