A635.5.3.RB - Video Debrief of Team MA

This week’s blog exercise was actually pretty fun since it provided me an opportunity to learn a little about how Steve Jobs approached his NeXT startup venture in the 1980’s, how he facilitated the NeXT team dynamics, and how my personality would have fit into this team.  I think it’s safe to say Steve Jobs has not only become somewhat of a legend because of his technological accomplishments, but also from the way he created his businesses and interacted with people. On second thought, strike that, I think he has reached legendary status at this point. I remember purchasing my first Apple product, an iPod Generation 3, back in 2003.  At the time, I bought into the Apple craze that was sweeping the world and marveled at the advanced technology they provided.  However, as time progressed I became somewhat frustrated with the way Apple forced me into using their proprietary software and began looking into other options.  I gave Apple another chance when my wife bought her first iPhone, but the end result was still the same. I felt Apple lacked the freedom of how I wanted to use their products and these limitations turned me off.  To this day, I respect and admire Apple’s ingenuity and contributions to the tech world, but their products are just not for me. Anyway, I digress since this exercise is not really about my personal experience and opinion of Apple and their products.  

The youtube video Steve Jobs Brainstorms with NeXT Team gives us a glimpse of a young Steve Jobs building his startup from the ground up.  It shows us how Steve tried to turn his visions into reality and the team dynamics of the individuals that left Apple to follow him.  A few weeks ago I completed a survey through NextSteps Research that produced a Management Assessment Profile (MAP) consisting of characteristics and how they related to a large dynamic business environment.  This week I am tasked to discuss how my MAP characteristics would have fit into this NeXT team environment. The first thing I noticed in the video was how Steve Jobs interacted with his team. To my surprise, it was nothing like I expected.  I built my assumptions of Steve around everything I have heard or read regarding how difficult he could be to work for and with. I anticipated him to be more impersonal, arrogant, and authoritarian. Someone who dominated every aspect of every process and was well, just plain mean.  Yet, he seemed beyond reasonable in my opinion and just very focused on keeping everyone else focused, especially considering the amount of pressure he must have been experiencing. Granted, I understand this was an incredibly small sample size into his approach, but again I saw no indication of any unreasonableness.  

So here I am, sitting in a room with Steve Jobs and the rest of the NeXT team trying to strategize about developing a product that does not exist and hopefully make the startup successful.  First off, I am uncomfortable. The MAP has a scale ranging from a large company to mid-sized company all the way down to a small startup company. My place on this scale showed I might best fit within a large company, so a startup company already does not fit my characteristics.  I am also not a big risk taker and tend to seek out positions that provide security as evidenced in my MAP showing that I have a very low desire for both business and personal risk. To essentially have blind faith and follow someone’s vision in hopes of longevity is uncharacteristic and feels like a win big or lose big gamble.  Another area I may have faltered is the need to create or innovate. I think saying the NeXT team is made up of creative and innovative individuals would be a gross understatement, so I’m not sure I would have meshed well with the team in this area and may have felt quite intimidated. Although I agree with the MAP that I am highly motivated to solve problems, my process creativity and inventiveness might have slowed down the team in this area.  This is especially true since I am more comfortable with a set of standard rules or practices but like to modify or use them in other ways to solve problems, however, these do not exist since this is a startup. Despite these aforementioned shortcomings in a startup environment, I do have strengths that would help in making strong contributions to the NeXT team. I believe Jobs said something along the lines of “Do it from the heart, because you're passionate about it, more so than simply to make a buck!” (Steve Job Brainstorms, 2012).  His philosophy aligns with my MAP’s financial characteristic in how I am not driven by financial metrics to quantify success. My MAP’s area of the achievement attribute displayed that I have a high desire for a challenge, I am highly motivated to exceed goals, and I know how to use resources to achieve goals. All of these attributes seem to fit well with Job’s vision and I believe would have strengthened the synergy amongst the NeXT team. I am aware this exercise was just that, an exercise. But visualizing myself in that room with Steve Jobs and the NeXT team provided great value to me because it forced me to visualize how I would have responded to his challenges and interacted with the team.  I believe that once I was over the initial shock of leaving the security of Apple, I would have performed very well in meeting Job’s expectations.

Reference

Сергей Петренко. January 2012. Steve Jobs Brainstorms with NeXT Team. [Video file].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loQhufxiorM&feature=youtu.be

A635.4.3.RB - Build a Tower, Build a Team

I completely agree with Tom Wujec's analysis of why kindergarteners perform better on the Spaghetti Challenge than MBA students.  I believe the children were better at this task because they tried to build “a” structure instead of trying to plan to build the tallest structure like adults.  It was evident the children performed better because they were learning what did not work through the repetitive building process. For example, children may build ten structures in ten minutes, each improving upon the next because “kids get instant feedback about what works and what doesn't work” (Wujec,2010).  Whereas, adults may use the same ten minutes orienting themselves to the task, talking about it, figuring out what it's going to look like, and jockeying for power. Then they spend some more time planning, organizing, sketching and laying out spaghetti (Wujec, 2010). Essentially, the adult approach is analysis paralysis and the child approach is to scrap planning and go straight to building.  Additionally, the children in this exercise completely remove the power struggles typically associated with team members trying to accomplish a task. Hence, there is no time wasted on trying to determine who is in charge, or whose idea is right or wrong.

Another interesting discovery from this exercise was the performance of CEO’s vs. CEO’s with an executive assistant on the team.  The team with the executive assistant performed significantly better in comparison. I wouldn’t go so far to say this was a surprise, but interesting nonetheless.  I immediately picture a group of CEO’s fighting with each other during this exercise because they might not be used to taking direction, more familiar with leading and directing people.  On the other hand, I think the key to improved performance on the team with the assistant was the special management skill they brought to the team. The thought of a typical CEO may conjure up visions of a boss solely dictating what to do and when to do it.  However, the reality is that most CEO’s have an executive assistant facilitating positive decisions and actions. Inevitably, CEO’s have to manage, but who manages the CEO? The answer lies within the marshmallow and spaghetti exercise by the executive assistants demonstrating their ability to manage CEO’s and facilitate processes.  

Process interventions study the behavior of groups as a whole and the individuals within these groups.  These interventions consist of group content, or the “what” or task at hand, and the group process of “how” the group will accomplish the task.  Brown (2011) suggests that process interventions are used to help groups “become more aware of the way it operates and the way its members work with one another” (p. 199).  If I were asked to conduct a process intervention workshop I would use the “Build a tower, build a team” video to focus on how the kindergarten students were able to outperform adults.  These young students were not more intelligent or experience than adults, yet they still produced the tallest structures. Process interventions center on five areas relative to group performance:  communication, member roles and functions in groups, group problem solving and decision making, group norms and growth, and leadership and authority. Since “process interventions are all about how the group is going about accomplishing its task” (Brown, 2011, p. 203) I would use the video to show how the kindergarteners differed from the adults in each of these areas.   

Throughout my personal and professional life, I have been somewhat indecisive when it comes to taking action.  Granted, I have definitely improved in this area through education and experience, but I know I still have work to do in this area.  I had to really change my mindset over these years to be less concerned with making mistakes and more concerned with learning from mistakes.  As cliche as it sounds, I've learned that making mistakes is not only okay, it is essential to growth. This week’s exercise has validated my suspicion that it’s better to commit to a decision, take action, and learn from it rather than to analyze the infinite possibilities and delay taking action or not take any action at all.  My approach to some group situations will be more like a group of kindergarteners building a structure from spaghetti and marshmallows with no fear of failure, worry about being wrong, or concern for power struggles.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wujec, T. (2010, Feb). Build a tower, build a team. TEDTalks.  Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower#t-389804

A635.3.3.RB - 50 Reasons Not to Change/The Tribes We Lead

Change.  This is a subject that is near and dear to me for many reasons.  I think the primary reason I’m so attracted to this subject is that I became fascinated by change and embraced it the moment I realized it is natural and inevitable.  This was a stark contrast to how I approached it in my younger years battling change and in a sense treating it as my enemy. My philosophy was more closely related to some of the reasons found in the 50 Reasons Not to Change graphic.  Some of my reasons not to change were because I thought it was contrary to policy, it was too much trouble, and everything was working OK. Looking back, I think I spent more energy fighting change when I could have expended less energy by accepting it and therefore both produce and receive benefits as a result.  This is not to say I am immune to resisting some change. I still find myself not wanting to change certain things in my organization, especially processes, because of time sensitivity and complexity. It’s not that I don’t want to tackle making such changes, but the challenge lies within simply not having enough time in the day.  I think one of my strengths is my ability to analyze processes, find the weak areas, and make improvements to them. Yet, I tend to have a “let’s not reinvent the wheel” approach if something works. Maybe that is something I need to examine further. Maybe reinventing the wheel is necessary every so often.

Embracing change is a mindset and requires conscious effort to remind one’s self that change can be a very good thing.  This helps in facing change with open arms and giving it a chance. It does no good to consider change a failure and dismissing it before giving it an opportunity to succeed.  I remember a few years ago when my team and I were on a call together and our supervisor announced a major change to how we would do business going forward. Everyone seemed devastated, angry, and certain this would create more harm than good.  I quickly thought about the impacts and I actually thought the change was needed and beneficial. Sure, there would be more work initially, but it would help all of us in the long run. I addressed the team and told them why I thought this was a positive and asked all of them to embrace it, especially since it wasn’t going away.  My supervisor called me after our team call and thanked me for getting everyone on board. That moment changed the way I approached changes and convinced me that positivity was a key element to any change. However, I still cringe when I see change initiatives that offer no value and seem implemented just for the sake of change itself.  I get it, change is necessary and can provide immense benefits to an organization, that is as long as the change is well orchestrated and feedback from others in the organization was sought out beforehand. Too many times have I seen a plan implemented without leadership fully understanding the impact the plan had on processes and people.  Brown (2011) suggests that “the single biggest reason organizational changes fail is that no one thought about endings or planned to manage their impact on people” (p. 145).

Seth Godin discusses people becoming leaders to bring about changes and how tribes are key to such changes in his 2009 TED Conference aptly called “The Tribes We Lead”.  While I agree with his concept I do not think this is anything revolutionary, but just Godin putting a label on something that has existed for thousands of years. He even admits tribes “are a very simple concept that goes back 50,000 years” (2009).  I couldn’t agree more that someone who stands up against the status quo, has a unique idea, and brings people together who support and share in the belief of this idea is the epitome of a leader. However, while I don’t think it is common for people to challenge the status quo, I do believe the process that occurs after is natural.  People are always looking for others with common interests and beliefs and if this comes in the form of connecting with someone trying to make a change, it will of course happen. So, the real change process begins when that individual becomes a leader by taking a stand against the norm. Granted, the opportunity for change grows stronger as people come together in numbers, and if we want to label these people as tribes, then yes, change is driven by tribes.  What this exercise has taught me is that I need to continue to embrace the inevitability of change and to not be afraid to challenge the status quo.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Godin, S. (2009, February). TEDTalk: The tribes we lead. [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead?language=en

A635.2.3.RB - How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

Marcia Blenko, leader of Bain & Company's Global Organization Practice, discusses how companies can make better and faster decisions in her 2010 interview with Harvard Business Review. Blenko is a perfect example of an external OD practitioner because she is brought in to an organization from the outside to assess and develop them.  These external practitioners bring a fresh perspective to the organization, can be more objective, and are less likely to be biased or feel pressure from the organization’s leadership since they do not fall within the hierarchy. Blenko just touches on how to improve and increase the speed of decisions in her interview by briefly outlining a five-step process that includes the following:

1. Understand how well the organization is making decisions.

2. Identify the critical decisions.

3. Take the critical decisions and use a what, who, how, when approach to implementing a plan.

4. Make sure the entire organization supports the individual decisions.

5. Embed throughout the organization.

Blenko also suggests that decision effectiveness has a positive correlation to employee engagement and organizational performance.  She states that “companies, where it’s easier to make decisions and get things done, are more stimulating places for employees to work” (1:43). While Blenko has revealed data to support her argument, she also admits that this correlation should come as no surprise and common sense should tell us that better decisions will lead to positive outcomes regarding employees and the organization as a whole.  However, many organizations struggle to obtain a culture of better decision-making leading to high levels of employee engagement and organizational performance. Some barriers preventing this culture may include people not being clear about who makes the decision, the right information not being communicated to the proper decision maker, leadership behaviors such as not engaging issues until after decisions are made, or individuals in the roles to make decisions lacking talent (Harvard Business Review, 2010).  In addition to Blenko’s list of impediments, I also think that the level of accountability and potential consequences of the decision-maker would tend to be significant factors of the quality and speed in the decision-making process. For example, Kopeikina (2006) claims that “leaders are paid to select strategies that increase value to shareholders, increase sales and improve effectiveness — strategies that will deliver the best consequences for the business. All business decisions are usually made with these major objectives in mind. However, no one can fully foresee the consequences of a decision at the moment he or she is making it. The market, along with other forces, can interfere and change the environment. As a result, many managers are paralyzed by the fear of making the wrong choice” (para. 1).

Speaking of quality and speed, Blenko suggests that the four elements of good decisions are quality, speed, yield, and effort.  I racked my brain trying to think of additional elements missing from her list and any additional element that came to mind could already fit into her list.  Except one; feedback. It could possibly fall into the quality element because seeking feedback will lead to a quality decision. However, feedback should be sought out whenever time is not a factor and I view it as an essential element to making good decisions. This exercise has taught me the value of Blenko’s four elements leading to a good decision and will assist me in applying these elements in my personal and professional life.  Additionally, it has also validated my suspicion that increase employee engagement correlates to good decisions throughout the organization and is essential to its overall positive performance.

References

Harvard Business Review. (2010, October 13). How companies can make better decisions, faster. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxpg6D4Hk8

Kopeikina, L. (2006, January 6). The Elements of a Clear Decision. Retrieved from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-elements-of-a-clear-decision/

A635.1.3.RB - 21st Century Enlightenment

Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of RSA, packs many topics about creating a more autonomous, self-aware, and empathic society into a short video aptly titled “21st Century Enlightenment”.  I think where Taylor is going with this idea is the fact society already experienced an enlightenment period during the late 17th century and into the early 19th century and he thinks another enlightenment era is necessary.  According to History.com “Enlightenment thinkers in Britain, in France and throughout Europe questioned traditional authority and embraced the notion that humanity could be improved through rational change” (“Enlightenment”, n.d.). Taylor (2010) states “21st Century Enlightenment should champion a more self-aware, socially embedded model of autonomy that recognizes our frailties and limitations” (3:16).  The video touches on many excellent points but unfortunately avoids how to actually accomplish the complex task of changing an entire society.

Taylor (2010) suggests that in order for us “to live differently, you have to think differently” (1:16).  This means that if we want to become better people and make society a better place, we must start with the way we think about everything.  For example, I was born and raised in the Catholic Faith and never questioned why I believed. That changed when I went into the military and was stationed in Utah where I met many Mormons who served the Church of Latter Day Saints.  I became friends with a lot of them and while I didn’t quite agree with their religion I still respected their faith. I eventually deployed to Afghanistan and again found myself thinking about other religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.  More specifically, what made my religion the “right” one and the other religions wrong? I realized I was Catholic because that’s how my parents raised me and why would the teach me something wrong? I don’t think they consciously thought about if Catholicism was the right or wrong religion, but I believe this was just the cycle of tradition being passed from generation to generation.  Case in point, we are raising both of my sons as Catholics, but that does not mean I don’t challenge my own thinking, keep an open mind, and respect other religions. Taylor (2010) states “Most of our behavior is the result of us responding automatically to the world around us” (2:10). To live differently, to live more empathetically, we must pause and think before responding automatically.  

Taylor discusses Robert Kegan’s thought that “successfully functioning in society with diverse values, traditions, and lifestyles require us to have a relationship to our own reactions rather than be captive of them” (4:02).  He also argues that we need "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange" (4:10). In short, this means we must avoid negative reactions to people who are different than ourselves and understand that sometimes there is no right or wrong, but just different.  For example, there has been a drastic shift in the acceptance of sexual identities and the LGBTQ community over the last decade. This is not to say there has been full acceptance, but it’s obvious that acceptance is gaining ground and fast. I grew up in a time when these were non-issues in my world or taboo to even discuss. Looking back, I know now that different sexual identities and preferences existed but were simply hushed because the norm was to reject the thought of people being anything other than heterosexual.  Looking forward, we have the choice to agree, disagree, accept, tolerate, and even agree to disagree with those who are different. However, we must respect people who are different from ourselves if we want an empathetic and autonomous society.

Taylor suggests that our society should eschew elements of pop culture that degrade people and that we should spend more time looking into what develops empathetic citizens. The optimistic and “anything is possible” side of me believes this can occur.  On the other hand, the pessimistic and realistic side of me views this as an impossibility when considering the sheer scale of empathetic change necessary on a global level. Speaking on a personal and local level of my experiences, I am astounded at society’s lack of empathy.  There are times when I come across unique individuals and appreciate their caring, understanding, and empathetic nature. Unfortunately, that is typically the exception and not the norm. I was raised to honor the Golden Rule in which we treat others the way we want to be treated.  It has to start with the parents instilling such a simple yet crucial value to their children if we wish to cultivate empathetic citizens. The problem is that some parents lack empathy and therefore their children have a good chance of also lacking empathy. So how does society break the cycle?  The only way I see that happening is adults changing the way they think about and react to others. But that has to also be a conscious decision to want to change and some people simply aren’t conscious about their thinking, let alone changing it. Taylor (2010) argues that it has become a cliche that education is the most valuable resource to a global knowledge economy, but “fostering empathetic capacity is just as important to achieving a world of citizens at peace with each other and themselves” (6:56).  The problem I see with this logic is that not everyone has the intellectual capacity to be a brain surgeon or the physical characteristics and talent to play professional football. Similarly, people lack the capacity to increase empathy and have limitations.

Taylor discusses atomizing people from collaborative environments and the destructive effect on their growth.  Such action would have catastrophic results in regards to organizational change because the people that make up the organization are one of the foundational elements of an organization’s success.  Remove collaboration from an organization where people are now operating independently, then you will find an immediate reduction in necessary communication, innovation, and overall growth. I can’t even imagine trying to perform my job successfully without collaborating with others, but I know that removing collaboration would not just slow positive organizational change, it would most likely prohibit such change.  This exercise has shown me the importance of empathy in our society and I will continue to be empathetic throughout my career. Additionally, I must be conscientious of how I react to those who may think, act, or even look different than me. Sometimes there is no right or wrong, just different.

References

Enlightenment. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/enlightenment

Taylor, M. (2010, Aug 19).  RSA Animate: 21st century enlightenment. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo

A632.9.3.RB - Role of Emotion in Decision Making

Some decisions we must make each day are so simple that we unconsciously arrive at the solution.  Whereas, other decisions are much more complex and it feels as if no good answer exists. Most of these decisions typically involve some level of emotion throughout the decision-making process.  For example, there may not be a strong need for emotions for a decision about what to eat for lunch. However, emotions may play a large role in making what someone may feel is a life-changing decision, such as choosing a career or which college to attend.   Batista (2013) states that “some of these decisions feel particularly big because they involve selecting one option to the exclusion of all others when the cost of being “wrong” can be substantial” (para. 1). Professor Baba Shiv believes utilizing emotions are underrated suggesting that “it is so critical that you invoke emotion into the decision-making process because of the virtues that accrue from there” (Stanford, 2011).  He proceeds to point out these virtues produced from emotion as passion that is persuasive, confidence that is contagious, and the extraction of utility from the experience (Stanford, 2011).

An example of when I was very confident about a decision was when I disagreed with a process in my organization.  It was drilled into our heads that we were not allowed to pay for shipping over $250 using a government credit card.  This was supposedly a government regulation that was strictly enforced and my supervisor along with my counterparts at other facilities all agreed the purchase card could not be used for this purpose. I discovered an employee had been routinely using their card to pay for shipping over $250 and questioned them on their rationale and process. I also read the regulation, then I read it again, and read it some more.  Something did not feel right. I interpreted the regulation that shipping over $250 had to go through a specific process, however, nowhere did it state the credit card could not be used as the payment mechanism. I was fully confident that the entire organization throughout the country had been following a regulation incorrectly and in the process wasting resources. I butted heads with my counterparts and supervisor over the issue with no resolution. I understood where they were coming from because after all, how could an entire organization possibly be following a process incorrectly for so long?  Yet, I believed that was truly the case and I finally asked my supervisor if he would allow me to raise my concern to the national level and he approved. Long story short, my instincts proved to be right and the process changed throughout our organization. It paid, in this case, to trust in my confidence and follow through to challenge conventional wisdom to result in a positive change.

Conversely, an example in which I lacked the confidence of the outcome was my decision to pursue a Master’s degree.  I failed out of my first year of college and immediately enlisted in the Air Force. It was definitely a wake-up call that I needed to grow up or I would be “flipping burgers for a living” as my father used to say.  After a couple years of getting acclimated to the military lifestyle, I spent almost 8 years chasing my dream of earning a Bachelor’s degree. I was proud of this accomplishment because I had to juggle so many other responsibilities while taking my classes.  It was a challenge and one I wasn’t sure I could overcome when I began that journey. So here I was being faced with another decision to further my education and my list of responsibilities was not growing shorter. So many questions and scenarios ran through my mind.  I found myself constantly weighing the pros and cons of such an important decision. Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001) suggest “there is a growing body of evidence that affect and emotions play an important role in people’s decision processes for choices when there are uncertain outcomes” (p. 269).  The outcome of my decision was seemingly uncertain, but did I give myself any reason to doubt I would succeed? Was even the slightest chance something could go wrong be enough to deter me from making an attempt at a Master’s degree? I knew it would not be easy, but I also knew I would not allow myself to fail, so I made the decision to begin another academic journey.  

References:

Batista, E., (2013, November 8).  Stop worrying about making the right decision.  Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/11/stop-worrying-about-making-the-right-decision

Hoch, S., & Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Stanford.  (2011, November 7).  Brain research at stanford: decision making [Video file].  Retrieved from https://youtu.be/WRKfl4owWKc

A632.8.3.RB - Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

Effective leaders understand that different situations require various decisions and responses and within these situations lies numerous levels of complexity.  Snowden and Boone (2007) developed the Cynefin Framework “to see things from new viewpoints, assimilate complex concepts, and address real-world problems and opportunities” (p. 70).  This framework “sorts the issues facing leaders into five contexts defined by the nature of the relationship between cause and effect” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 70): simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic.  The fifth context, disorder, pertains when the primary context is unclear.

The first example of a decision I made in multiple contexts occurred while supervising.  My responsibility was to supervise and instruct employees on assembling locomotive components such as alternators and rotors.  I typically operated within a complicated context in a realm of known unknowns on a daily basis.  Quality and supply chain problems were common, but I became adept at sensing, analyzing, and responding appropriately.  However, one shift proved to be especially challenging.  We had some emergency orders that needed to be fulfilled and even the slightest delay in our processes would put our schedule in jeopardy.  As luck would have it, a machine on the assembly line broke and created a complex context.  This situation put everyone into a slight panic and scrambling for a solution.  It was second shift and all the leaders who make the big business decisions were already home for the night.  There was no time to waste, so I gathered my workers who I viewed as the experts and we quickly devised a plan.  This was an important step because “a leader must listen to the experts while simultaneously welcoming novel thoughts and solutions from others” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 72).  The plan worked flawlessly and despite the setback, we successfully fulfilled the emergency order.

My second example runs the gamut of all four contexts during my brief career as a contract specialist.  On any given day I found myself constantly bouncing around each context with zero predictability.  Some people embraced the unpredictability, but I was not one of those people.  And while Snowden and Boone (2007) suggest that “leaders who understand that the world is often irrational and unpredictable will find the Cynefin framework particularly useful” (p. 70), the problem was time.  There was a minimal time spent operating within simple contexts because time constraints rarely allowed it.  Therefore, I spent most of my efforts searching for answers using incomplete data within complex contexts and sometimes even crossing into chaotic contexts.  One such example was when I was tasked with awarding multiple contracts before the end of the fiscal year deadline.  I was given too many contracts for the amount of time to award them.  And despite the many hours of overtime I spent managing my workload, the clock was about to run out.  I noticed some of my coworkers were somehow managing to accomplish their workload, but after further examination, the quality of their work was subpar and even noncompliant.  I thought for a second I would have to conform to a lackluster standard to get my work done, but I knew I wasn’t wired that way.  So I pressed on.  This was a chaotic context filled with turbulence, tension, and unknowables.  Nonetheless, even though it came down to the final hour, I looked for what would work instead of perfect solutions and accomplished the awards in time.  

The Cynefin Framework provides an essential roadmap of sorts when navigating amongst different contexts and having to make important decisions within them.  One way this framework can assist in the decision-making process is bringing to light how entrained thinking must be avoided.  As Snowden and Boone (2007) state, “leaders are susceptible to entrained thinking, a conditioned response that occurs when people are blinded to new ways of thinking by the perspectives they acquired through past experience, training, and success” (p. 70).  Another way the Cynefin Framework helps is by identifying the leader’s role within each context.  For example, a leader must sense, categorize and respond within the simple context while a leader needs to act, sense, and respond within the chaotic context.  A third and fourth way it improves decisions is by recognizing the danger signals and responses to these dangers related to a leader’s decision for each context.  The fifth way it helps with these decisions is by stressing the importance of understanding context, “the ability to embrace complexity and paradox, and a willingness to flexibly change leadership style” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 76).

Reference:

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.