A632.8.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

    

In today’s complex business environment, most leaders typically rely upon their intuition and gut instincts when it comes to unordered environments, such as complex and complicated contexts. Unfortunately, it not enough to depend solely on these natural capabilities. Leaders will need to depend on external guides and cues informing them of the contexts of their surrounding environment and how best to integrate their organizations into the appropriate approach for the given contexts (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

In dealing with multiple contexts across the five domains; simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder, leaders will be required to learn how to identify multiple contexts occurring at the same time, and be able to shift their decision making processes as well as the relative behavior in order to successfully manage a collaborative environment in each of the domains. Likewise, leaders must be open-minded during these shifts to keep themselves from controlling a particular environment at any given time, remaining neutral, all the while assessing and partaking in the decision-making process with the group (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

Within my working environment, a Joint Special Operations military command, I have had to shift contextual environments two to three times a day. In these cases, they were all separate, giving me time to reset and get organized and mentally cleared to approach the next domain without expectations, so that I may be able to more readily be able to identify the next context. Typically, I would say it would be easy to carry over the same contextual mindset from one environment to the next being in the military environment as long as I have been. However, getting entrained in this line of thinking does not help myself, or my organization approach the respective domain from a more effective collaborative decision-making perspective.

I was asked to take over an ‘Operations and Intelligence’ (O&I) meeting as an adhoc request. While I did not have the experience of running this meeting before, I had relied on what I had witnessed, and well as any relative experience I was able to bring to bear. My approach to this complicated process included a slow, methodical, yet authoritative disposition that allowed me to direct the meeting, yet remain approachable for others to chime in and offer matter of value. Focusing on running the meeting by topic, and issues for discussion, left me with less than normal time to listen and process external input from the group.

Immediately following this meeting that felt empowering, I was again asked to join in on a Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Video Teleconference pertaining to Global Force Manpower concerns. However, under these circumstances, I was to be a fly-on-the-wall more-less, for the sake of situational awareness, and learning the concerns of the JCS on this particular issue. Shifting from a complex domain (probe, sense, respond) where the answer to successfully running the meeting was being divulged as it emerged from the meeting itself, to a complicated domain (sense, analyze, respond), was a rather easy and enjoyable experience for me. While there was not much collaboration occurring for me during the JCS VTC, there was much internal dialogue and planning for responding to my Non-Commissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC) with relative questions.

Another example of cross-domain interaction was while I was at home discussing how to plan out a trip with a male counterpart over the phone, all the while emotionally sharing in my wife’s frustration with how she was feeling and how the children were behaving, as well as relating to my children as they were interrupting my phone conversation. While possibly seen as a mundane shift in focus from one group to another, there can most certainly be some formidable consequences if handled inappropriately. It was quite easily identifiable as to which approach to use with my male friend over the phone; sense, organize, respond (simple domain), my wife; sense, analyze, respond (complicated), and my children as they dropped and broke a glass around their bare feet; act, sense, respond (chaotic) (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

In all cases, I relied on my intuition and gut instinct based on experience, and what I had learned from that. Had I known about, and learned to integrate the Cynefin Framework, I may have been more deliberate in identifying and approaching the O&I meeting with an intention to probe. While I have yet to approach an environment to identify the context deliberately for the sole purpose of sensing, and integrating decision-making, I have begun to become aware of the framework, and self-aware in the need and benefits of employing it intentionally and deliberately as an optional tool to align behaviors and decisions with the environmental context (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

In critically analyzing the Cynefin framework to show how it can provide an improved context for decision making, I offer the following:

1)      Each domain offers an opportunity to make sense of the leader’s contextual environment by understanding what the context consists of, how to approach it, and other domains from which to shift to/from if appropriate.

2)      Each of the domains provide the leader with opportunities to explore an environment without assumptions by removing entrained thinking and focusing on an identifiable domain for behavior and decision making processes.

3)      Offers the leader a framework from which to share contextual nuances with their organization if effort to collaboratively decide how best to work with one another in the decision-making process.

4)      Can assist in Operational Risk Management by offering control elements in which leaders can systematically assess the framework’s context of a given environment.

5)      Provides the leader with another tool within systems thinking to prevent organizational, cultural, political, and personal bias from entering into negotiations, storytelling, and decision making.

References:

Snowden, D. J., Boone, M. E. (2007, November). Decision making: A leader’s framework for decision making. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making

Stout-Rostron, S. (n.d.). Coaching leaders: Understanding complex environments-by dr. sunny stout-rostron. Retrieved by http://www.wabccoaches.com/blog/coaching-leaders-understanding-complex-environments-dr-sunny-stoutrostron/

Norton, D. (2016, February 2). What’s the “best” leadership style? Retrieved from http://www.wearecto2.com/blog/2016/1/1/contextual-leadership

A632.7.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Collaborative Decision Making

     Several months ago as a relatively new Desk Officer to a country in Africa representing a special operations command, I had inquired about how to get specialized communications equipment down to that country in a timely and secure manner so the personnel who will be working there can safely retrieve and use the equipment as soon as they arrive. It turned out that there was not a process in place, and no one had yet been identified to look into options of feasibility.

     Those that were in the pre-collaborative process was more less meeting for the sake of identifying alone through fact gathering, what the current understanding was of our Diplomatic Pouch (DIP) process, who was leading it, and what the expected end result would be. During this meeting, these concerns were brought up by my boss, as well as another high ranking officer who was in charge of ensuring the correct equipment was properly prepared in time for shipping. A question asked by this communications Officer-in-Charge (OIC) was, who is the Action Officer? As I looked around to see who that might have been, my boss looked at me and said, go ahead, raise your hand. As I raised my hand, I could feel an overwhelming sense of embarrassment come over me as if to say, why did I not know this? Truth be told, I was never informed I was the 'Action Officer'. In addition, the communications OIC, a Lieutenant Colonel, assumed I knew what an Action Officer was. Luckily, the collaborative process came next.

     The next meeting, a couple days later, myself, our logistics officer, a communications technician and trainer, and our Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) met to discuss what options we had for getting our equipment from our office to a particular country in Africa in a secure and timely manner. Our Logistics officer would follow through with the Frankfurt Consular Office in the event we determined if the DIP process, or an escorted flight proved most beneficial. If it was determined the equipment would go down to the continent with the actual service members that would use them, then our NCOIC would ensure that all consulate offices en route to the final destination were kept informed of the equipment traveling through their respective country.

     Entering and throughout this meeting, each of us shared a similar vision of finding an established method, and or methods to ensuring the specialized communications equipment traveled quickly and securely to the respective country. However, each member of the group had a different idea as to how to accomplish it best. Thankfully, there was some constraints, as well as guidance. 

     As I opened the discussion on the topic, I had asked the group what they all thought the preferential method would be. As we discussed each method in as much detail as possible, one at a time, we came to some conclusions; 1) non-standard aviation (NSAV) aircraft would not be accepted to land in all countries; 2) there could be issues with the consulate's office of countries the service members would need to travel through with the specialized communications equipment; 3) the DIP process was fairly unknown since it had never been used before; and 4) the procedure may be determined by the destination U.S. Embassy and country team. Each member was given the task by the NCOIC to take a deeper look into each of the processes now that all four methodologies have been identified, and to return in three days with all information gaps filled.

     Three days later, we had all reconvened to collaborate on the way ahead for getting specialized communications equipment down to African countries. Having been the Desk Officer for one of the destination countries, I had discovered over the past few days what the method would be for that country. However, while feeling an urge to share what I had learned, I restrained myself to just listening, as the NCOIC opened the floor for discussion. Naturally, everyone wanted to share what they had learned. Bennett & Gadlin (2013) shared that "self-awareness can provide a foundation for self-control in a wide variety of situations." In this case, as the Action Officer, I felt compelled to hear everyone else's finding first before I inject my own along with a final decision.

     Some of the benefits that came from the stakeholders that were involved in the decision-making process included presenting ideas based on personal experience, or based on creative thinking, the disposition to agree, or disagree and providing  reasons as to why, the ability to help gather relevant information, and help trouble-shoot and test methodologies and processes from different point of views.

     In the end, it was determined that all processes of shipping the specialized communications equipment could be utilized and tailored for each country's requirements. In this respect, the outcome went beyond my expectations, as well as my hopes for a single reliable and secure method, alone. The only other asset that could potentially have added value to the collaborative decision making process may have been the experienced OIC. However, due to the embarrassing pre-collaborative meeting with him, I was not inclined to include him in the decision-making process. In fact, in designating me the Action Officer, he had preferred not to be part of the process.

     In the future, in the name of saving everyone's valuable time, I would seek out all identifiable stakeholders and request a period of fact and information gathering prior to convening for a collaboration session. In addition, I would identify who exactly the final decision rests with if delegated to one person, and I would ask more often, who, or what is missing? (Levine, 2009).

References:

Bennett, L. M. and Gadlin, H. (2012, June). Collaboration and team science: From theory to practice. HHS Author Manuscripts, 60(5). 768-775. doi: 10.231/JIM.0b013e318250871d

Coleman, D. & Levine, S. (2008). Collaboration 2.0: Technology and best practices for successful collaboration in a web 2.0 world. Retrieved from http://www.fg.uni-mb.si/predmeti/gi/Viri/Collaboration%202.0-DR.pdf

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration (2nd Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

A632.6.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

The High Cost of Conflict

     A few months ago, I applied for the Navy Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Program through my command, Special Operations Command, Africa. during the early stages of application, I discovered that the command did not have any program to process applications in place. With my timeline to process and submit the application getting short, and the relationship between my Officer-in-Charge (OIC) and myself having been strained due to his expectations of how I should do my job, and my experience telling me otherwise, I sought other guidance outside my chain of command. This decision ultimately brought me face to face at the 11th hour with my OIC telling me how wrong I was not to seek him out for guidance sooner.

     As I explained why I chose the path I did, excluding our uneasy relationship and emphasizing why I utilized the subject matter experts within the Warrant Officer community for guidance in the absence of an actual command CWO program for the Navy, I realized my OIC and I was just not going to see eye to eye. However, in the light that my OIC out-ranked me, I  chose to stop defending the reasons for my decisions, and conceded to his disposition about how wrong I was. It was apparent to me at this time that there was a good chance that all my efforts to complete my application and submit it could very well have been in vain without all the proper recommendations, to include the one from my OIC.

    Looking at this scenario from Levine's (2009) eyes, his 10 Principles of Resolutionary Thinking indicates that Believing in Abundance would had provided me the the vision of seeing my OIC helping me had I trusted him to act in my best interest. Creating a Partnership with my OIC would have been key in feeling we could work out the dilemma of not having a process for submitting a CWO application at our command. Had I been in the mental disposition of being Creative, I would have been looking for ways to include my OIC in the problem solving process rather than employing the constraints of resolution between us.

     Attempting to Foster a Sustainable resolution with my OIC would have open the door for receptive feedback, offering a coalition of efforts, rather than going it alone without the potential weight of an experienced, well-networked 05 pay grade by my side. In turn, this approach would have kept the relationship from hitting a critical emotional threshold that left us with an even more uncomfortable relationship than previously experienced. Becoming Open in the process of conflict resolution was in fact a disposition I was attaining while my OIC was sharing with me how wrong I was to have made the decisions I did. If I was not humble, or genuinely vulnerable, it would have been detected, and our discussion would have gone worse than it had (Levine, 2009). 

     The relationship between my OIC and I had been strained for the previous five months. Typically, we keep to our own space and counsel with minimal to say to each other. When you do talk, it is often on professional terms with even perhaps injects of humor now and then. However, Forming a Long-Term Collaboration with my OIC would have been the perfect state of mind to keep from focusing on having to avoid a challenge, or surviving one. I feel if I focused more on cultivating a relationship that allowed for a collaborative effort with my issues, I would have been apt to avoid his person. While I always pay attention to my OIC's emotional disposition, which is typically difficult to read since he often keeps to himself or overlaps humor in most conversations he has with my peers throughout the day, it has been challenging to Rely on Feelings and Intuition. Although it may be challenging at times, approaching relationship with the intention of considering others feeling, and listening to your own intuition can aid in understanding where the other party may be coming from, as well as possibly discovering their true intentions during conflict resolution (Levine, 2009).

     In our relationships at work, it is rare for anyone to disclose all information for the sake of getting to know everyone and what they bring to the table. During the course of a conflict, in my experience, people tend to share new information in attempt to be right, win an argument or debate, or to persuade others to join them in their ploy. In the case of Disclosing Information and Feelings between my OIC and myself, it would have done us some real good prior to the conflict as well as during in the way of helping one another understand each other (Levine, 2009). 

     Learning through the Process never took hold during our conflict except the awareness of what I should have done, and how upset my OIC was that I did not include him earlier in the process. Had my OIC been open to learning how wrong I already knew I was, he may have focused on helping me through the remaining process instead of getting frustrated and giving me a non-favorable recommendation with my application. Becoming ResponseAble is our responsibility as leaders in resolving our own internal conflict on the path of getting know and understand ourselves in the process of resolution. We must take responsibility of our own emotional conflict inside us, as well as the decisions that can lead us through  creative, considerate, and collaborative resolutions (Levine, 2009).
     I cannot say it would have reduced the cost of conflict between my OIC and myself, as the results ended with his recommendation not in favor of supporting my application, and nothing else. Never having been in such a potential position with this OIC before, it is difficult to say what his reaction may have been otherwise. However, this process would have definitely reduced the internal conflict that I had with myself just by knowing I had extended myself to him fairly, honestly, and openly. Knowing that the other parties will see how far I am willing to partake in the resolution process, may very well in turn provide them the non-threatened opportunity to meet me halfway in the process, creating that initial, yet vital vision of the hope for a resolution from both parties.

References: 

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Levine, S. (n.d.). Resolution works. Retrieved from  http://resolutionworks.com/writings/resolutionary-view-10-principles-for-developing-the-attitude-of-resolution/

Stahl, R., Levine, S. (2011). Executive s&op and the cycle of resolution: Resolving conflict to align human energy. Foresight, 20-26. Retrieved from http://www.tfwallace.com/files/docs/Executive_SOP_and_Cycle_of_Resolution.pdf

A632.5.5.RB_SiegmundWayne

Protected Values in Decision Making

     My Protected Values (PV), the intentional use of particular semantics (say what you mean, and mean what you say), forthcoming and upfront behavior, and fairness, I typically keep close in mind, reference them often, and use them in comparisons regularly to hold against scrutiny (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001).

     These values I hold most dear, because I believe that clear, concise, unambiguous language offers the best avenue to understanding. I value those who can be forthcoming and upfront, because it leave me with a sense of trust. I believe that honesty typically is the best policy. I learned long ago that I would rather face the consequences of a truth than a lie. My third PV is fairness, because life can often be unfair, and to be able to inject a sense of fairness into decision making makes me feel good about my ability to make compromise with another person, or people.

     In considering what circumstances I might allow a trade-off to occur with either of these three PVs, I can state that these PVs, or any other PVs of mine, are not absolute, save one - my spirituality. That is to say that my belief in God is beyond reproach, unchangeable against all scrutiny and threat, and will never be compromised in any way. I chose three PVs that may potentially get traded off under specific circumstances.

     In respect to the use of choice semantics in attempt to convey an idea, I may trade-off in the case of confusing another in hopes of winning an argument. Receiving confusing language from another without attempting to get clarification would come from a disinterested disposition in what the other had to say, or to avoid an argumentative conflict. With respect to being forthcoming and upfront, I suppose I would support this value up to the point where I would feel it may do some irreparable harm.

     Conceptualizing how these values progress from being protected to getting partially traded-off can be seen when the PV is in conflict with another value of sorts. As this 'other value' increases, the likelihood of a trade-off of the PV increases. To associate Gilbert (2005), with these potential conflicts, It seems to me in my experience that computing probability will occur once a conflict has been identified between a PV and another value that is not so protected, but whose probability has made it so that if the PV was not allowed for a trade-off, would cause some type of irreparable harm.

     For example, if my spouse asked if there is enough money to go away for the weekend, and I said, no, not this weekend, I would see a conflict between not being forthcoming and upfront with her about the money spent two days ago to get my truck professionally detailed, and the value of her trust in me to make choices she would agree with. In this case, I would let her believe the money went to bills in order to preserve her trust. Here, I chose a value whose probability of loss had increased to the point that being forthcoming and upfront could have tainted the trust my spouse had in me, therefore, choosing to maintain the trust with a valuable lesson learned, as well as a dose of guilt. Vlachoutsicos (2013), shares "balancing the tensions between adhering to one’s values and being effective may well demand uncomfortable compromises".

References:

Gilbert, D. (2005, July). Dan gilbert: Why we make bad decisions. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness?language=en

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C. & Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). (2001). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Mulligan, K. (2004). The nature of value conflict and its consequences for public opinion. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1092075628/inline

Vlachoutsicos, C. (2013, January 31). Ethics: When your values clash with your company's. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/01/when-your-values-clash-with-yo

A632.5.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

How Protected Are Your Protected Values

            I feel my Protected Values (PV) are what provide me with a moral code through which I keep integrity, clarity, and fairness. Of all my values, I protect those that reflect ‘saying what you mean’ and meaning what you say’, intention of being forthcoming and up-front, and lastly, giving fair consideration to others (Hoch, Kunreuther &Gunther, 2001). As for trade-offs, they can affect you positively and negatively, depending on the circumstances. In the case where I share a PV with my spouse, such as keeping our children healthy, we generally believe in not vaccinating. While we believe vaccinations can harm our children, they can also support the scholastic community in staying healthy against what the vaccine is for.

            These three highly protected values of mine are nested in a larger frame of beliefs. When I was married, these three beliefs were rooted into our vows for our marriage, and still live by them today as the foundation of our relationship. The first belief is in Communication. I believe communicating is a vital aspect to any relationship. I feel when visual and audible communication are withheld, the relationship can be left with a myriad of ideas, assumptions and emotions to figure out. Listening to people communicate, there appears to be a need to convey, and unfortunately, need to convince. Either way, I have a strong feeling when it comes to semantics. Where words have meaning and used to convey an idea, when improperly used, can take an ordinary day, and make it a challenging and stressful one. On the other hand, when choice words are used, yet confusing, it can promote the consideration of other meanings that otherwise may be outside of our awareness.

In terms of a trade-off when it comes to communication, I would accept poor semantics in the event of talks with my spouse. The benefit here is that it gives me pause to consider her emotional disposition where she may be effected semantically. The other side of this coin is the frustrations that come with misunderstanding. When someone thinks ill of me, because of my semantics, thusly feeling misunderstood, I make every attempt to correct what was said. This is particularly true for those I am close with, and to a much lesser degree for those I have no emotional interest.

Another belief I carry is that of honesty. Within this belief, I demand integrity in my personal and professional life. However, my professional life requires, at times, a straying from the truth with other foreign nationals in order to meet objectives. In my personal life, my integrity is typically unwavering. With respect to integrity at home, it is not just about telling the truth, but acting on my inner truth, my feelings. What I mean is that there is a difference between my absolute truth, and a perceived truth. While my belief in being honest covers down on everything generally, my PV of integrity continues to guide my moral compass. As a pro to a trade-off, I would think that perhaps a ‘white lie’ may produce a happy feeling in another if it was something they wanted to hear. A con, however, is the guilty conscience of telling a lie, and deceiving someone.

Lastly, allowing for fairness in everything I do, gives those I work with and live with an opportunity to be heard, seen, and enjoy something to a greater extent. This fairness is nested in the belief of compromise; compromise in the sense of fairness to all, not of my values. At work, compromise occurs when multiple agencies annually may take a turn in running a Joint Inter-Agency conference. Often, the benefits to trading-off on this would be a sense of continuity if a particular agency were to take two, or more years consecutively, whereas a con would be missed opportunities by other agencies for years, possibly hurting inter-agency relationships.

Looking at all three beliefs at this time, continues to strengthen my support for, and resolve of them. Often, I find the need to promote the necessity for them, both at work, as well as at home. However, Baron & Leshner (2000), shares “PVs are strong opinions, weakly held…in the sense that they express infinite trade-offs” (pg. 193). I truly feel both my PVs, as well as their overarching beliefs in general, are standards that would make us all better people. While I may not always live up to my own standards, it is a standard nonetheless that I can continue to measure myself with to determine growth over time. Hoch et al. (2001), states that “…people have some threshold for when it is appropriate to hold this value and when it is appropriate to trade it off” (p.254). At this moment, I feel stronger about them than I did prior to beginning this exercise.

References:

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). (2001). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken NJ. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Baron, J. & Leshner, S. (2000). How serious are expressions of protected values? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(3), 183-194. DOI: 10.1037//1076-898X.6.3.183

  

Tanner, C. & Medin, D. L. (n.d). Protected values: No omission bias and no framing effects. Retrieved from http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/medin/publications/Tanner%20%26%20Medin%202004%20Protected%20Values.pdf