In today’s issue, I want to show you my favorite decision making tool.
If you adopt this framework (and anyone can), you’ll be able to make sense of and influence the toughest problems.
The trouble is that most people use the same process to make decisions regardless of context, and that’s a recipe for making mistakes.
Your decisions aren’t effective because you don’t have a way to decode the problem’s context.
If you don’t understand different types of problems, it’s hard to make good decisions.
I struggled to be an effective decision maker when I started as an education policy analyst in 2007.
- I didn’t have a system for making decisions.
- I didn’t know the different types of problems.
- I didn’t know that problem type guides decision making strategy.
Because of that, I approached every problem the same way. I did tons of analysis by crunching student outcome data. Then I researched best practices from DC think tank reports and made recommendations.
It was a purely analytical and deductive approach to find right answers.
When our education policy recommendations were implemented, not everything went as planned. Best practices that were effective in other communities didn’t work for us.
And some changes resulted in unintended consequences that made the problem worse.
It was really frustrating.
You see, not all problems have right answers. And different problems require different decision making approaches.
Let me show you a framework that helps discern crucial differences between the context of a problem and how you should respond.
It’s called the Cynefin framework.
Context is everything
The Cynefin framework (see 2×2 grid below) was developed by David Snowden to help decision makers “make sense of” different problem contexts. Cynefin, pronounced ki-nev-in, is the Welsh word for habitat.
It’s based on 5 different decision making contexts. Today, I’m going to describe three of them.
#1. Simple
Simple environments have clear cause and effect relationships. Problems in this domain are like puzzles: there is a right answer.
According to the framework, the best approach with simple problems is to “sense-categorize-respond.”
An example is determining eligibility for subsidized housing. One collects relevant information income and family information (“sense”), cross-references this with eligibility requirements (“categorize”), and issues a determination (“respond”).
The decision is straightforward and one can rely on best practices and clearly established operating procedures to reach it.
#2. Complicated
Cause and effect in complicated domains is much harder to detect. There are often many moving parts and relationships, but with expertise and detailed analysis, a range of right answers can be determined.
According to the framework, the best approach is to “sense-analyze-respond.”
An example is engineering Space X’s Falcon 9, the first orbital space rocket capable of reflight. Engineers establish what the rocket needs to do and mission parameters (“sense”), design rocket prototypes (“analyze”), and build/test them (“respond”).
The decisions are tough, but experts and artificial intelligence can establish good analytical procedures to complete the task.
#3. Complex
Complex domains have many unknowns, which means that cause and effect can only be deduced in retrospect. What that means in a practical sense is that continuous change is expected and there are no right answers.
According to the framework, the best approach is to “probe-sense-respond.”
An example of a complex problem is homelessness. The problem itself involves so many interrelated factors – housing, addiction, domestic violence, unemployment and criminal justice to name just a handful – that it defies reductive analysis. Thus, one is forced to test small-scale actions (“probe”) and see how the problem and environment change in reaction (“sense”). Then, one assesses feedback and acts accordingly (“respond”).
There is no command and control with complex domains. Just adaptive learning with the intent of increasing influence.
The lesson most leaders miss is that you can’t apply simple decision making procedures to complex problems. The problem’s unique structure and context will defy “best practices.”
What worked to reduce homelessness in Houston, for example, may not be effective in Cleveland. That’s because solutions to complex problems are not universal, but context-dependent.
How to respond when there’s no right answer
In complex social problems, two things are very hard to admit.
The first one is: “I don’t have the solution.”
After some initial disappointment, many will appreciate your humility.
The second one is more difficult: “I don’t believe that there is a solution.”
You can point the listener back to the Cynefin framework and explain that certain types of problems don’t have “solutions” in the traditional sense. Or, you can talk about how every action involves trade-offs.
But, in a deeper sense, the take-away is more unsettling.
Many of society’s toughest problems – the ones that are really complex – will never truly be “solved.”
When that is the case, stop seeking simple solutions and do the next best thing: make sense of the current situation and apply the most effective decision making process. It may not eradicate the problem, but it’s the best way to make consistent progress.
TLDR
- With simple problems, follow standard operating procedures
- With complicated problems, analyze rigorously
- With complex problems, test small changes to see how the system responds
See you again next week.
==
Whenever you’re ready, there are two ways I can help you:
→ I’m a strategic advisor for the toughest societal problems like poverty, crime and homelessness. People come to me when they want to stop spinning their wheels and get transformative, systems-level change.
→ I’m a coach for emerging and executive leaders in the social and public sectors who want to make progress on their biggest goals and challenges.
Let’s find out how I can help you become transformational.
