Decision Making And Problem Solving

ADecision
Leader’sMaking Framework for
by David J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone
From the Magazine (November 2007)

Summary. Reprint: R0711C Many executives are surprised when previously successful leadership
approaches fail in new situations, but different contexts call for different kinds of responses. Before
addressing a situation, leaders need to recognize which context governs it—and tailor their actions
accordingly. Snowden and Boone have formed a... more
In January 1993, a gunman murdered seven people in a fast-food
restaurant in Palatine, a suburb of Chicago. In his dual roles as an
administrative executive and spokesperson for the police
department, Deputy Chief Walter Gasior suddenly had to cope
with several different situations at once. He had to deal with the
grieving families and a frightened community, help direct the
operations of an extremely busy police department, and take
questions from the media, which inundated the town with
reporters and film crews. “There would literally be four people
coming at me with logistics and media issues all at once,” he
recalls. “And in the midst of all this, we still had a department that
had to keep running on a routine basis.”

Though Gasior was ultimately successful in juggling multiple

demands, not all leaders achieve the desired results when they
face situations that require a variety of decisions and responses.
All too often, managers rely on common leadership approaches
that work well in one set of circumstances but fall short in others.
Why do these approaches fail even when logic indicates they
should prevail? The answer lies in a fundamental assumption of
organizational theory and practice: that a certain level of
predictability and order exists in the world. This assumption,
grounded in the Newtonian science that underlies scientific
management, encourages simplifications that are useful in
ordered circumstances. Circumstances change, however, and as
they become more complex, the simplifications can fail. Good
leadership is not a one-size-fits-all proposition.
We believe the time has come to broaden the traditional approach
to leadership and decision making and form a new perspective
based on complexity science. (For more on this, see the sidebar
“Understanding Complexity.”) Over the past ten years, we have
applied the principles of that science to governments and a broad
range of industries. Working with other contributors, we
developed the Cynefin framework, which allows executives to see
things from new viewpoints, assimilate complex concepts, and
address real-world problems and opportunities. (Cynefin,
pronounced ku-nev-in, is a Welsh word that signifies the multiple
factors in our environment and our experience that influence us
in ways we can never understand.) Using this approach, leaders
learn to define the framework with examples from their own
organization’s history and scenarios of its possible future. This
enhances communication and helps executives rapidly
understand the context in which they are operating.

Understanding Complexity

Complexity is more a way of thinking about the world

than a new way of working with mathematical models.
Over a ...


The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has applied
the framework to counterterrorism, and it is currently a key
component of Singapore’s Risk Assessment and Horizon
Scanning program. Over time, the framework has evolved
through hundreds of applications, from helping a pharmaceutical
company develop a new product strategy to assisting a Canadian
provincial government in its efforts to engage employees in policy
making.

The framework sorts the issues facing leaders into five contexts
defined by the nature of the relationship between cause and
effect. Four of these—simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic
—require leaders to diagnose situations and to act in contextually
appropriate ways. The fifth—disorder—applies when it is unclear
which of the other four contexts is predominant.

Using the Cynefin framework can help executives sense which

context they are in so that they can not only make better decisions
but also avoid the problems that arise when their preferred
management style causes them to make mistakes. In this article,
we focus on the first four contexts, offering examples and
suggestions about how to lead and make appropriate decisions in
each of them. Since the complex domain is much more prevalent
in the business world than most leaders realize—and requires
different, often counterintuitive, responses—we concentrate
particularly on that context. Leaders who understand that the
world is often irrational and unpredictable will find the Cynefin
framework particularly useful.
Simple Contexts: The Domain of Best Practice
Simple contexts are characterized by stability and clear cause-
and-effect relationships that are easily discernible by everyone.
Often, the right answer is self-evident and undisputed. In this
realm of “known knowns,” decisions are unquestioned because all
parties share an understanding. Areas that are little subject to
change, such as problems with order processing and fulfillment,
usually belong here.

Simple contexts, properly assessed, require straightforward

management and monitoring. Here, leaders sense, categorize, and
respond. That is, they assess the facts of the situation, categorize
them, and then base their response on established practice.
Heavily process-oriented situations, such as loan payment
processing, are often simple contexts. If something goes awry, an
employee can usually identify the problem (when, say, a borrower
pays less than is required), categorize it (review the loan
documents to see how partial payments must be processed), and
respond appropriately (either not accept the payment or apply the
funds according to the terms of the note). Since both managers
and employees have access to the information necessary for
dealing with the situation in this domain, a command-and-
control style for setting parameters works best. Directives are
straightforward, decisions can be easily delegated, and functions
are automated. Adhering to best practices or process
reengineering makes sense. Exhaustive communication among
managers and employees is not usually required because
disagreement about what needs to be done is rare.
Nevertheless, problems can arise in simple contexts. First, issues
may be incorrectly classified within this domain because they
have been oversimplified. Leaders who constantly ask for
condensed information, regardless of the complexity of the
situation, particularly run this risk.

Second, 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.

Third, when things appear to be going smoothly, leaders often

become complacent. If the context changes at that point, a leader
is likely to miss what is happening and react too late. In the
exhibit “The Cynefin Framework,” the simple domain lies
adjacent to the chaotic—and for good reason. The most frequent
collapses into chaos occur because success has bred complacency.
This shift can bring about catastrophic failure—think of the many
previously dominant technologies that were suddenly disrupted
by more dynamic alternatives.
The Cynefin Framework

The Cynefin framework helps leaders determine the

prevailing operative context so that they can make
appropriate ...

Leaders need to avoid micromanaging and stay connected to what

is happening in order to spot a change in context. By and large,
line workers in a simple situation are more than capable of
independently handling any issues that may arise. Indeed, those
with years of experience also have deep insight into how the work
should be done. Leaders should create a communication channel
—an anonymous one, if necessary—that allows dissenters to
provide early warnings about complacency.

Finally, it’s important to remember that best practice is, by

definition, past practice. Using best practices is common, and
often appropriate, in simple contexts. Difficulties arise, however,
if staff members are discouraged from bucking the process even
when it’s not working anymore. Since hindsight no longer leads to
foresight after a shift in context, a corresponding change in
management style may be called for.

Complicated Contexts: The Domain of Experts

Complicated contexts, unlike simple ones, may contain multiple
right answers, and though there is a clear relationship between
cause and effect, not everyone can see it. This is the realm of
“known unknowns.” While leaders in a simple context must
sense, categorize, and respond to a situation, those in a
complicated context must sense, analyze, and respond. This
approach is not easy and often requires expertise: A motorist may
know that something is wrong with his car because the engine is
knocking, but he has to take it to a mechanic to diagnose the
problem.

Because the complicated context calls for investigating several

options—many of which may be excellent—good practice, as
opposed to best practice, is more appropriate. For example, the
customary approach to engineering a new cell phone might
emphasize feature A over feature B, but an alternative plan—
emphasizing feature C—might be equally valuable.

Another example is the search for oil or mineral deposits. The

effort usually requires a team of experts, more than one place will
potentially produce results, and the location of the right spots for
drilling or mining involves complicated analysis and
understanding of consequences at multiple levels.

Entrained thinking is a danger in complicated contexts, too, but it

is the experts (rather than the leaders) who are prone to it, and
they tend to dominate the domain. When this problem occurs,
innovative suggestions by nonexperts may be overlooked or
dismissed, resulting in lost opportunities. The experts have, after
all, invested in building their knowledge, and they are unlikely to
tolerate controversial ideas. If the context has shifted, however,
the leader may need access to those maverick concepts. To get
around this issue, a leader must listen to the experts while
simultaneously welcoming novel thoughts and solutions from
others. Executives at one shoe manufacturer did this by opening
up the brainstorming process for new shoe styles to the entire
company. As a result, a security guard submitted a design for a
shoe that became one of their best sellers.

Another potential obstacle is “analysis paralysis,” where a group

of experts hits a stalemate, unable to agree on any answers
because of each individual’s entrained thinking—or ego.
Working in unfamiliar environments can help leaders and experts
approach decision making more creatively. For instance, we put
retail marketing professionals in several military research
environments for two weeks. The settings were unfamiliar and
challenging, but they shared a primary similarity with the retail
environment: In both cases, the marketers had to work with large
volumes of data from which it was critical to identify small trends
or weak signals. They discovered that there was little difference
between, say, handling outgoing disaffected customers and
anticipating incoming ballistic missiles. The exercise helped the
marketing group learn how to detect a potential loss of loyalty and
take action before a valued customer switched to a competitor. By
improving their strategy, the marketers were able to retain far
more high-volume business.

Games, too, can encourage novel thinking. We created a game

played on a fictional planet that was based on the culture of a real
client organization. When the executives “landed” on the alien
planet, they were asked to address problems and opportunities
facing the inhabitants. The issues they encountered were
disguised but designed to mirror real situations, many of which
were controversial or sensitive. Because the environment seemed
so foreign and remote, however, the players found it much easier
to come up with fresh ideas than they otherwise might have done.
Playing a metaphorical game increases managers’ willingness to
experiment, allows them to resolve issues or problems more easily
and creatively, and broadens the range of options in their
decision-making processes. The goal of such games is to get as
many perspectives as possible to promote unfettered analysis.
Reaching decisions in the complicated domain can often take a
lot of time, and there is always a trade-off between finding the
right answer and simply making a decision. When the right
answer is elusive, however, and you must base your decision on
incomplete data, your situation is probably complex rather than
complicated.

Complex Contexts: The Domain of Emergence

In a complicated context, at least one right answer exists. In a
complex context, however, right answers can’t be ferreted out. It’s
like the difference between, say, a Ferrari and the Brazilian
rainforest. Ferraris are complicated machines, but an expert
mechanic can take one apart and reassemble it without changing
a thing. The car is static, and the whole is the sum of its parts. The
rainforest, on the other hand, is in constant flux—a species
becomes extinct, weather patterns change, an agricultural project
reroutes a water source—and the whole is far more than the sum
of its parts. This is the realm of “unknown unknowns,” and it is
the domain to which much of contemporary business has shifted.

Most situations and decisions in organizations are complex

because some major change—a bad quarter, a shift in
management, a merger or acquisition—introduces
unpredictability and flux. In this domain, we can understand why
things happen only in retrospect. Instructive patterns, however,
can emerge if the leader conducts experiments that are safe to
fail. That is why, instead of attempting to impose a course of
action, leaders must patiently allow the path forward to reveal
itself. They need to probe first, then sense, and then respond.

There is a scene in the film Apollo 13 when the astronauts

encounter a crisis (“Houston, we have a problem”) that moves the
situation into a complex domain. A group of experts is put in a
room with a mishmash of materials—bits of plastic and odds and
ends that mirror the resources available to the astronauts in flight.
Leaders tell the team: This is what you have; find a solution or the
astronauts will die. None of those experts knew a priori what
would work. Instead, they had to let a solution emerge from the
materials at hand. And they succeeded. (Conditions of scarcity
often produce more creative results than conditions of
abundance.)

Another example comes from YouTube. The founders could not

possibly have predicted all the applications for streaming video
technology that now exist. Once people started using YouTube
creatively, however, the company could support and augment the
emerging patterns of use. YouTube has become a popular
platform for expressing political views, for example. The company
built on this pattern by sponsoring a debate for presidential
hopefuls with video feeds from the site.

As in the other contexts, leaders face several challenges in the

complex domain. Of primary concern is the temptation to fall
back into traditional command-and-control management styles—
to demand fail-safe business plans with defined outcomes.
Leaders who don’t recognize that a complex domain requires a
more experimental mode of management may become impatient
when they don’t seem to be achieving the results they were
aiming for. They may also find it difficult to tolerate failure,
which is an essential aspect of experimental understanding. If
they try to overcontrol the organization, they will preempt the
opportunity for informative patterns to emerge. Leaders who try
to impose order in a complex context will fail, but those who set
the stage, step back a bit, allow patterns to emerge, and determine
which ones are desirable will succeed. (See the sidebar “Tools for
Managing in a Complex Context.”) They will discern many
opportunities for innovation, creativity, and new business
models.

Tools for Managing in a Complex Context

Given the ambiguities of the complex domain, how can

leaders lead effectively? Open up the discussion.
Complex ...

Chaotic Contexts: The Domain of Rapid Response

In a chaotic context, searching for right answers would be
pointless: The relationships between cause and effect are
impossible to determine because they shift constantly and no
manageable patterns exist—only turbulence. This is the realm of
unknowables. The events of September 11, 2001, fall into this
category.

In the chaotic domain, a leader’s immediate job is not to discover

patterns but to stanch the bleeding. A leader must first act to
establish order, then sense where stability is present and from
where it is absent, and then respond by working to transform the
situation from chaos to complexity, where the identification of
emerging patterns can both help prevent future crises and discern
new opportunities. Communication of the most direct top-down
or broadcast kind is imperative; there’s simply no time to ask for
input.

Unfortunately, most leadership “recipes” arise from examples of

good crisis management. This is a mistake, and not only because
chaotic situations are mercifully rare. Though the events of
September 11 were not immediately comprehensible, the crisis
demanded decisive action. New York’s mayor at the time, Rudy
Giuliani, demonstrated exceptional effectiveness under chaotic
conditions by issuing directives and taking action to reestablish
order. However, in his role as mayor—certainly one of the most
complex jobs in the world—he was widely criticized for the same
top-down leadership style that proved so enormously effective
during the catastrophe. He was also criticized afterward for
suggesting that elections be postponed so he could maintain
order and stability. Indeed, a specific danger for leaders following
a crisis is that some of them become less successful when the
context shifts because they are not able to switch styles to match
it.

Moreover, leaders who are highly successful in chaotic contexts

can develop an overinflated self-image, becoming legends in their
own minds. When they generate cultlike adoration, leading
actually becomes harder for them because a circle of admiring
supporters cuts them off from accurate information.

Yet the chaotic domain is nearly always the best place for leaders
to impel innovation. People are more open to novelty and
directive leadership in these situations than they would be in
other contexts. One excellent technique is to manage chaos and
innovation in parallel: The minute you encounter a crisis, appoint
a reliable manager or crisis management team to resolve the
issue. At the same time, pick out a separate team and focus its
members on the opportunities for doing things differently. If you
wait until the crisis is over, the chance will be gone.

Leadership Across Contexts

Good leadership requires openness to change on an individual
level. Truly adept leaders will know not only how to identify the
context they’re working in at any given time but also how to
change their behavior and their decisions to match that context.
They also prepare their organization to understand the different
contexts and the conditions for transition between them. Many
leaders lead effectively—though usually in only one or two
domains (not in all of them) and few, if any, prepare their
organizations for diverse contexts.
Decisions in Multiple Contexts: A Leader’s Guide

Effective leaders learn to shift their decision-making

styles to match changing business environments.
Simple, ...


During the Palatine murders of 1993, Deputy Chief Gasior faced
four contexts at once. He had to take immediate action via the
media to stem the tide of initial panic by keeping the community
informed (chaotic); he had to help keep the department running
routinely and according to established procedure (simple); he had
to call in experts (complicated); and he had to continue to calm
the community in the days and weeks following the crime
(complex). That last situation proved the most challenging.
Parents were afraid to let their children go to school, and
employees were concerned about safety in their workplaces. Had
Gasior misread the context as simple, he might just have said,
“Carry on,” which would have done nothing to reassure the
community. Had he misread it as complicated, he might have
called in experts to say it was safe—risking a loss of credibility and
trust. Instead, Gasior set up a forum for business owners, high
school students, teachers, and parents to share concerns and hear
the facts. It was the right approach for a complex context: He
allowed solutions to emerge from the community itself rather
than trying to impose them.• • •

Business schools and organizations equip leaders to operate in

ordered domains (simple and complicated), but most leaders
usually must rely on their natural capabilities when operating in
unordered contexts (complex and chaotic). In the face of greater
complexity today, however, intuition, intellect, and charisma are
no longer enough. Leaders need tools and approaches to guide
their firms through less familiar waters.
In the complex environment of the current business world,
leaders often will be called upon to act against their instincts.
They will need to know when to share power and when to wield it
alone, when to look to the wisdom of the group and when to take
their own counsel. A deep understanding of context, the ability to
embrace complexity and paradox, and a willingness to flexibly
change leadership style will be required for leaders who want to
make things happen in a time of increasing uncertainty.
ABusiness
version Review.
of this article appeared in the November 2007 issue of Harvard

DS
David J. Snowden ([email protected]) is the
founder and chief scientific officer of Cognitive
Edge, an international research network. He is
based primarily in Lockeridge, England.

MB
Mary E. Boone ([email protected]) is the
president of Boone Associates, a consulting
firm in Essex, Connecticut, and the author of
numerous books and articles, including
Managing Interactively (McGraw-Hill, 2001).
Recommended For You
PODCAST
Why Leaders Should Rethink Their Decision-Making
Process

A Framework for Leaders Facing Difficult Decisions

3 Strategies for Making Better, More Informed Decisions

Decision Trees for Decision-Making