Leading with Cynefin

This blog is to share a very interesting model I discovered only about a year ago. In a following blog, I will explore more about a concrete situation where this model very much proved its worth.

I am talking about the Cynefin model, developed by David Snowden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin will explain the basics of this model (including the meaning and pronunciation of the Welsh word “cynefin”). It has been around for a while but was popularized in the edition of the Harvard Business Review issue of November 2007 (if you google for it you will find a free PDF version online).

The Cynefin framework classifies the problems of this world in five domains, but I do not address the fifth one, disorder, here:

Simple. Here, the relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all. The approach to solve problems falling in this domain is Sense - Categorise – Respond. The leader can minimize his involvement, delegate and ensure the appropriate processes are applied to the problem. This is the world of best practices.

Complicated. The relationship between cause and effect can be identified but this requires analysis, investigation or expertise. The problem solving approach is Sense - Analyze – Respond. The leader has to make sure expert opinions are evaluated, and also listen to contradictory advice. 

Complex. The relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, not in advance. The approach to this kind of problems is Probe - Sense - Respond. The leader has to keep an open communication and listen to all suggestions (not just those of the experts). He needs to allow for experimenting and look for the emergence of patterns.

Chaotic. There is no relationship between cause and effect for the problem at hand. The approach is to Act - Sense – Respond. Here, obviously, there is no such thing as using past experience and novel practice is needed. There is point in looking for the "best solution": the leader needs to take action and establish control.

The importance of the model is to realize that different problems require different approaches. We all would like problems to be simple, or complicated at the most, where an action has a clear impact. But that is not how things happen in the real world. As a business person, it is important to be aware of the type of problem you are addressing (simple, complicated, complex or chaotic) and then apply the appropriate approach. Each approach results in “respond” which means taking action. But rather than deciding on the action based on a standard formula, the steps leading to the action are very different (Sense + Categorize, or Sense + Analyze, or Probe + Sense or finally Act + Sense) and depend on the typology of the problem.

The art of listening ... when nobody's talking !

I recently came across another spin on the same old topic of the art and importance of listening (5 Great Tips ... !). Often listed as a key character trait of great leaders, listening to the input from the team allows leaders to evaluate different views and to make the best decision for the organization. After all, you don’t really learn anything new by listening to yourself talking. A challenge in cultures and organizations where he who talks most (loudly) is considered as knowing what he is talking about.

But a concern I often hear in Asia, mainly from expatriate managers, is “I want my team’s input, I ask for their ideas or suggestions, but I am not getting anything …! They just tell me what they think I want to hear”. In other words, the leader is trying to listen but nobody is talking !

It’s a well described culture trait (coined as “power distance” in Hofstede’s culture studies, see www.geert-hofstede.com) that, in general, Asians do not easily provide their opinions, let alone challenge those of their leader or those in more senior positions in the organization, even if the leader explicitly asks for differing inputs. And although generalizations are always limiting, I have experienced this at different occasions in Asia.

So how do you listen when nobody’s talking ?

My recommendations based on the experience with teams in Asia:

-          Create trust first. Participating and contributing ideas is a normal part of the Western mindset of professional life. In Asia, this can only exist if there is a real relationship of trust. Trust is not created with a team, but with one individual at a time. And creating trust takes time, there’s no shortcut solution !

-        Develop one-on-one exchanges in addition to the team discussions. Most people in Asia will not easily speak up when they are in a group, and for sure not if they have an opinion that is different from the majority. The fear of “losing face” makes for people to prefer to stay quietly to themselves. In a one-on-one exchange, where trust has been created, people will easily contribute their ideas.

-        Don’t kill ideas. This is an obvious one, but if the leader criticizes ideas that have been volunteered, those who spoke up will quickly stop contributing. Look for the positive element, however small it is, in each suggestion, and build on that. And if criticism is appropriate, do it in a one-on-one situation.

So next time you try to listen but are not getting the suggestions you are expecting from your team, ask yourself what steps you have taken to create the fertile ground for this exchange.