DECISION MAKING

A Leader’s Framework for Decision

Making
by David J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone
FROM THE NOVEMBER 2007 ISSUE

I n 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.

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has

Understanding Complexity applied the framework to counterterrorism, and it is

Complexity is more a way of thinking about the world currently a key component of Singapore’s Risk Assessment
than a new way of working with mathematical and Horizon Scanning program. Over time, the framework
models. Over a century ago, Frederick Winslow
has evolved through hundreds of applications, from helping
Taylor, the father of scientic management,
revolutionized leadership. Today, advances in a pharmaceutical company develop a new product strategy
complexity science, combined with knowledge from to assisting a Canadian provincial government in its efforts to
the cognitive sciences, are transforming the eld engage employees in policy making.
once again. Complexity is poised to help current and
future leaders make sense of advanced technology,
globalization, intricate markets, cultural change, and The framework sorts the issues facing leaders into five
much more. In short, the science of complexity can contexts defined by the nature of the relationship between
help all of us address the challenges and
opportunities we face in a new epoch of human cause and effect. Four of these—simple, complicated,
history. complex, and chaotic—require leaders to diagnose situations

A complex system has the following characteristics: and to act in contextually appropriate ways. The fifth—

It involves large numbers of interacting elements. disorder—applies when it is unclear which of the other four
contexts is predominant.

The interactions are nonlinear, and minor changes

can produce disproportionately major Using the Cynefin framework can help executives sense
consequences.
which context they are in so that they can not only make
better decisions but also avoid the problems that arise when
The system is dynamic, the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts, and solutions can’t be their preferred management style causes them to make
imposed; rather, they arise from the mistakes. In this article, we focus on the first four contexts,
circumstances. This is frequently referred to as offering examples and suggestions about how to lead and
make appropriate decisions in each of them. Since the
emergence
complex domain is much more prevalent in the business
. world than most leaders realize—and requires different, often
counterintuitive, responses—we concentrate particularly on
The system has a history, and the past is
that context. Leaders who understand that the world is often
integrated with the present; the elements evolve
with one another and with the environment; and irrational and unpredictable will find the Cynefin framework
evolution is irreversible. particularly useful.
 Though a complex system may, in retrospect, Simple Contexts: The Domain of Best
appear to be ordered and predictable, hindsight Practice
does not lead to foresight because the external
conditions and systems constantly change. Simple contexts are characterized by stability and clear
cause-and-effect relationships that are easily discernible by
Unlike in ordered systems (where the system everyone. Often, the right answer is self-evident and
constrains the agents), or chaotic systems (where undisputed. In this realm of “known knowns,” decisions are
there are no constraints), in a complex system the
agents and the system constrain one another, unquestioned because all parties share an understanding.
especially over time. This means that we cannot Areas that are little subject to change, such as problems with
forecast or predict what will happen. order processing and fulfillment, usually belong here.

One of the early theories of complexity is that

Simple contexts, properly assessed, require straightforward
complex phenomena arise from simple rules.
Consider the rules for the ocking behavior of birds: management and monitoring. Here, leaders sense, categorize,
Fly to the center of the ock, match speed, and avoid and respond. That is, they assess the facts of the situation,
collision. This simple-rule theory was applied to
categorize them, and then base their response on established
industrial modeling and production early on, and it
promised much; but it did not deliver in isolation. practice. Heavily process-oriented situations, such as loan
More recently, some thinkers and practitioners have payment processing, are often simple contexts. If something
started to argue that human complex systems are
goes awry, an employee can usually identify the problem
very different from those in nature and cannot be
modeled in the same ways because of human (when, say, a borrower pays less than is required), categorize
unpredictability and intellect. Consider the following it (review the loan documents to see how partial payments
ways in which humans are distinct from other must be processed), and respond appropriately (either not
animals:
accept the payment or apply the funds according to the
They have multiple identities and can uidly
terms of the note). Since both managers and employees have
switch between them without conscious thought.
(For example, a person can be a respected access to the information necessary for dealing with the
member of the community as well as a terrorist.) situation in this domain, a command-and-control style for
setting parameters works best. Directives are
They make decisions based on past patterns of straightforward, decisions can be easily delegated, and
success and failure, rather than on logical,
functions are automated. Adhering to best practices or
denable rules.
process reengineering makes sense. Exhaustive

They can, in certain circumstances, purposefully communication among managers and employees is not
change the systems in which they operate to usually required because disagreement about what needs to
equilibrium states (think of a Six Sigma project) in
be done is rare.
order to create predictable outcomes.

Leaders who want to apply the principles of Nevertheless, problems can arise in simple contexts. First,
complexity science to their organizations will need to issues may be incorrectly classified within this domain
think and act differently than they have in the past. because they have been oversimplified. Leaders who
This may not be easy, but it is essential in complex
constantly ask for condensed information, regardless of the
contexts.
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.

Leaders need to avoid micromanaging and stay connected to

The Cynen Framework what is happening in order to spot a change in context. By

The Cynen framework helps leaders determine the and large, line workers in a simple situation are more than
prevailing operative context so that they can make capable of independently handling any issues that may arise.
appropriate choices. Each domain requires different
Indeed, those with years of experience also have deep
actions. Simple and complicated contexts assume an
ordered universe, where cause-and-effect insight into how the work should be done. Leaders should
relationships are perceptible, and right answers can create a communication channel—an anonymous one, if
be determined based on the facts. Complex and necessary—that allows dissenters to provide early warnings
chaotic contexts are unordered—there is no
immediately apparent relationship between cause about complacency.
and effect, and the way forward is determined based
on emerging patterns. The ordered world is the Finally, it’s important to remember that best practice is, by
world of fact-based management; the unordered
world represents pattern-based management. definition, past practice. Using best practices is common,
and often appropriate, in simple contexts. Difficulties arise,
The very nature of the fth context—disorder—
makes it particularly difcult to recognize when one however, if staff members are discouraged from bucking the
is in it. Here, multiple perspectives jostle for process even when it’s not working anymore. Since hindsight
prominence, factional leaders argue with one
no longer leads to foresight after a shift in context, a
another, and cacophony rules. The way out of this
realm is to break down the situation into constituent corresponding change in management style may be called
parts and assign each to one of the other four for.
realms. Leaders can then make decisions and
intervene in contextually appropriate ways.
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.

Chaotic Contexts: The Domain of Rapid

Tools for Managing in a Complex Response
Context In a chaotic context, searching for right answers would be
Given the ambiguities of the complex domain, how pointless: The relationships between cause and effect are
can leaders lead effectively?
impossible to determine because they shift constantly and
Open up the discussion.
no manageable patterns exist—only turbulence. This is the
Complex contexts require more interactive realm of unknowables. The events of September 11, 2001,
communication than any of the other domains.
fall into this category.
Large group methods (LGMs), for instance, are
efcient approaches to initiating democratic,
interactive, multidirectional discussion sessions.
Here, people generate innovative ideas that help
leaders with development and execution of
 complex decisions and strategies. For example, In the chaotic domain, a leader’s immediate job is not to
“positive deviance” is a type of LGM that allows
discover patterns but to stanch the bleeding. A leader must
people to discuss solutions that are already
working within the organization itself, rather than first act to establish order, then sense where stability is
looking to outside best practices for clues about present and from where it is absent, and then respond by
how to proceed. The Plexus Institute used this
working to transform the situation from chaos to complexity,
approach to address the complex problem of
hospital-acquired infections, resulting in behavior where the identification of emerging patterns can both help
change that lowered the incidence by as much as prevent future crises and discern new opportunities.
50%. Communication of the most direct top-down or broadcast
kind is imperative; there’s simply no time to ask for input.
Set barriers.
Barriers limit or delineate behavior. Once the Unfortunately, most leadership “recipes” arise from
barriers are set, the system can self-regulate
within those boundaries. The founders of eBay, for examples of good crisis management. This is a mistake, and
example, created barriers by establishing a simple not only because chaotic situations are mercifully rare.
set of rules. Among them are pay on time, deliver Though the events of September 11 were not immediately
merchandise quickly, and provide full disclosure
comprehensible, the crisis demanded decisive action. New
on the condition of the merchandise. Participants
police themselves by rating one another on the York’s mayor at the time, Rudy Giuliani, demonstrated
quality of their behavior. exceptional effectiveness under chaotic conditions by issuing
directives and taking action to reestablish order. However, in
Stimulate attractors. his role as mayor—certainly one of the most complex jobs in
Attractors are phenomena that arise when small the world—he was widely criticized for the same top-down
stimuli and probes (whether from leaders or
leadership style that proved so enormously effective during
others) resonate with people. As attractors gain
momentum, they provide structure and the catastrophe. He was also criticized afterward for
coherence. EBay again provides an illustrative suggesting that elections be postponed so he could maintain
example. In 1995, founder Pierre Omidyar order and stability. Indeed, a specific danger for leaders
launched an offering called Auction Web on his
personal website. His probe, the rst item for sale, following a crisis is that some of them become less successful
quickly morphed into eBay, a remarkable attractor when the context shifts because they are not able to switch
for people who want to buy and sell things. Today, styles to match it.
sellers on eBay continue to provide experimental
probes that create attractors of various types. One
such probe, selling a car on the site, resonated Moreover, leaders who are highly successful in chaotic
with buyers, and soon automobile sales became a contexts can develop an overinflated self-image, becoming
popular attractor.
legends in their own minds. When they generate cultlike
adoration, leading actually becomes harder for them because
Encourage dissent and diversity.
a circle of admiring supporters cuts them off from accurate
Dissent and formal debate are valuable
information.
communication assets in complex contexts
because they encourage the emergence of well-
forged patterns and ideas. A “ritual dissent” Yet the chaotic domain is nearly always the best place for
approach, for instance, puts parallel teams to
leaders to impel innovation. People are more open to novelty
work on the same problem in a large group
meeting environment. Each team appoints a and directive leadership in these situations than they would
spokesperson who moves from that team’s table to be in other contexts. One excellent technique is to manage
another team’s table. The spokesperson presents
chaos and innovation in parallel: The minute you encounter
the rst group’s conclusions while the second
group listens in silence. The spokesperson then a crisis, appoint a reliable manager or crisis management
turns around to face away from the second team, team to resolve the issue. At the same time, pick out a
which rips into the presentation, no holds barred, separate team and focus its members on the opportunities
while the spokesperson listens quietly. Each
team’s spokesperson visits other tables in turn; by for doing things differently. If you wait until the crisis is over,
the end of the session, all the ideas have been well the chance will be gone.
 dissected and honed. Taking turns listening in Leadership Across Contexts
silence helps everyone understand the value of
listening carefully, speaking openly, and not taking Good leadership requires openness to change on an
criticism personally. individual level. Truly adept leaders will know not only how
to identify the context they’re working in at any given time
Manage starting conditions and monitor for but also how to change their behavior and their decisions to
emergence.
match that context. They also prepare their organization to
Because outcomes are unpredictable in a complex understand the different contexts and the conditions for
context, leaders need to focus on creating an
transition between them. Many leaders lead effectively—
environment from which good things can emerge,
rather than trying to bring about predetermined though usually in only one or two domains (not in all of
results and possibly missing opportunities that them) and few, if any, prepare their organizations for diverse
arise unexpectedly. Many years ago, for instance,
contexts.
3M instituted a rule allowing its researchers to
spend 15% of their time on any project that
interested them. One result was a runaway
success: the Post-it Note.
Decisions in Multiple Contexts: A
Leader’s Guide
Effective leaders learn to shift their decision-making
styles to match changing business environments.
Simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic contexts
each call for different managerial responses. By
correctly identifying the governing context, staying
aware of danger signals, and avoiding inappropriate
reactions, managers can lead effectively in a variety
of situations.

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.

A version of this article appeared in the November 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review.

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

Mary E. Boone ([email protected]) is the president of Boone Associates, a consulting rm in Essex, Connecticut, and the author of numerous
books and articles, including Managing Interactively (McGraw-Hill, 2001).

This article is about DECISION MAKING

 FOLLOW THIS TOPIC

Related Topics: LEADERSHIP

Comments
Leave a Comment

POST

6 COMMENTS

Michael Schreider 5 months ago

Thank you for sharing this article. I appreciate the way the Cynen into 5 contexts and gives examples. I can think of many examples where this
would be extremely helpful in the Education Sector.

REPLY 10
  JOIN THE CONVERSATION

POSTING GUIDELINES
We hope the conversations that take place on HBR.org will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To comment, readers must sign in or register. And to ensure the quality of
the discussion, our moderating team will review all comments and may edit them for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic
may be deleted per the moderators' judgment. All postings become the property of Harvard Business Publishing.