We have spent a lot of time this week talking about the Cynefin framework as a decision-making tool, and how the framework sorts issues facing leaders into five contexts by the nature of the relationship is between cause and effect. Four of these contexts include simple, complicated, complex and chaotic (Snowden & Boone, 2007). Using the framework of the Cynefin’s descriptions of the four quadrants of the framework, two represent chaos and a need to think outside the box in situations in which you are not able to depend on a universe of stability and order. Stability and order are related to simple and complicated contexts whereas chaotic and complex contexts are unordered and the way forward must be based on emerging patterns rather than right answers based on facts (Watkins, ND). Effective leaders must learn to shift their decision-making styles to match changing business environments (Snowden & Boone, 2007). In this way, they are able to appropriately respond to differing situations in decision making.
I recently made a decision that on the surface could be construed as other than simple and complicated. My supplier, who I contracted with Lockheed Martin to build a portion of one of the bombs which are a weapon carried on the F-35 aircraft, advised my company wanted to add a catastrophic loss clause to our contract. This clause would not penalize their company in the case of a weapon launch failure. Normally, the customer a severe penalty and monetary fine if their weapon fails to launch and it was determined that their company was at fault. Because Lockheed Martin is driven by metrics for quality on the F-35 program and we have established risk procedures in place to account for the potential of such a penalty, it was a simple yet complicated decision if we would allow for this exclusion of fault to their design. Although my company agreed to the clause (simple), we required negotiations with the customer of which we would agree to a cap a penalty amount per weapon delivered by way of a fine (complicated) and we would assume the majority of the fine and responsibility if the customer were found to be at fault. Based on similar negotiations and established company policies, we were able to agree on a cap on the penalty we would charge them and predefined a fine that was reasonable to replace the cost of the fail weapon. Although a complicated negotiation, the established history provided us with a simple context solution in making our decision.
Three years ago a Government customer approached five major aerospace companies and advised us we needed to find a way to work together as one team. Lockheed Martin was one of the companies and the other four were our most fierce competitors. The customer advised us they did not have the expertise within the Government to continue to satisfactorily define the ongoing, ever-changing requirements for our F-35 sustainment program going forward. The customer was ultimately asking us to find a way to form one team with our companies’ represented and provide the most talented subject matter experts to fill the gaps the Government experienced in keeping the maintenance of the aircraft across our country as a shared effort. This approach was unprecedented and we were immediately thrown into a complex and chaotic context. There were no historic decisions or situations on which we could base our approach on. Our company vice presidents reached out to our company to other business units and none had experienced such a challenge; neither had the other companies. How could we form a team of one out of the five major companies and keep the customer and the country first ahead of each companies’ agenda? Through consulting outside experts as well as forming a team of legal, contracts and technical experts we were able to pitch the customer an approach in which we could protect each companies’ proprietary information through information technology firewalls and require employees to sign a non-disclosure not to use what they learned from other companies to use against the other. Additionally, the companies would have an equal work share and a number of employees working the program to ensure there was no favoritism of one company’s approach over another. This contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics and is now in its third year of success. The complexity of the situation and decisions made helped current and future leaders make sense of advanced technology and cultural change while dealing with the whole being greater than the sum of its parts (Snowden & Boone, 2007). I find it makes perfect sense to change our behavior and approach, as a leader, depending on the situation. I can say that a couple of years ago I classified myself as a particular type of leader without the realization that to be an effective one, I would need to not only constantly look for ways I can improve but also consider I must change my approach in decision making depending on the situation I face. The Cynefin framework offers a simple yet complex framework to help leaders adjust to changing environments and situations in decision making.
The simplicity of the Cynefin Model as a Decision-Making tool is in its' ability to flow from one quandrant to another based on the circumstances of the variables coming into play with the process. Must of our discussions this week in our DQ's illustrated the share complexity our teams experienced in their workplace and how simple decisions could snowball into very complex ones, rapidly. The nature of change is adaptability, and this tool seems to cover those needs.
References:
Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making.Harvard Business Review, 66-76.
Watkins, D. (ND). Cynefin Framework and Decision Making. PowerPoin
No comments:
Post a Comment